Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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) 00:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchinson Lilley Investments LLP[edit]

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

Company is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it seems to be run of the mill, failing WP:CORP. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references establish the firm's existence but nothing there or found elsewhere indicates encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 14:49, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FXDialogue[edit]

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

Article appears to be an advert. Not notable despite size. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find any coverage about this firm in reliable sources. Two of the three sources in the article are primary. The one independent source appears to be a regulatory body entry and as such, provides verifiability, bit not notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. Just another Forex trying to promote its wares. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 17:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sole non-primary reference is the firm's regulatory entry (apparently now de-authorised). No evidence that it ever attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that one user created this article but did not increase its WP:N. Likely fails WP:CORP too. --Artene50 (talk) 21:21, 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 no consensus. Admittedly the situation has changed a number of times during the discussion but I think editorial action can take it from here, whether that be userfying, redirecting, or merging. Someone should also try to fix the fact that some of the references are in parentheses and others are not. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Salticidae species[edit]

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

There are over 5000 species of spider in the family Salticidae. New ones are constantly being added and old ones are frequently synonymized or moved to different genera. There is no possibility of Wikipedia maintaining an up-to-date list of these 5000+ spiders while also constantly updating the redundant lists under the 560+ genera articles for this family. Indeed, this list already includes dozens, if not hundreds, of errors. The normal way this is handled is by having a list of genera (which we already have at List of Salticidae genera) and maintaining the species lists under each genus article. For comparison, the number of bird species is roughly the same order of magnitude, but no one has created List of bird species. Instead we have the manageable List of birds, which lists only the subgroups, while the actual species lists are one or two levels further down the article hierarchy. Also consider that there are dozens of editors working on birds and only 2 or 3 editors working on Salticidae (minus Philcha who passed away recently). Please have mercy on us! Kaldari (talk) 07:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've added the following subarticles to the deletion nomination:

List of Salticidae species (A–C)
List of Salticidae species (D–F)
List of Salticidae species (G–J)
List of Salticidae species (K–M)
List of Salticidae species (N–P)
List of Salticidae species (Q–S)
List of Salticidae species (T–V)
List of Salticidae species (W–Z)

Kaldari (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. There are already several online databases that are regularly updated, such as ITIS and Catalog of Life, that contain virtually the exact same data here.--Animalparty-- (talk) 08:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I created these pages, and they came in very handy when working on the spider section, but now that I don't have time for it, it is probably not of great use. Keeping it updated would not be a great problem though, I have a script somewhere that parses the World Spider Catalog and creates these Wiki pages. I just haven't been running it for a while. --Sarefo (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarefo: It looks like your script hasn't run since 2009. If you started running it again, I would be happy to withdraw the deletion nomination. Otherwise, it is pretty much hopeless to keep this list up to date by hand (and extremely tedious). Kaldari (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I abandoned the spider work some years ago. As nobody seems to have picked it up, I don't think the Salticidae Species list has a lot of use these days. As I said, it was really helpful while building the Wikipedia Salticidae scaffolding. I will look into running the script again though, I'll try to do it within a week or so. That should update all of the Spider family pages. However, should you consider deleting the Salticidae species page(s), I will not be the one to stop you.--Sarefo (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarefo: is the script something that a typical programmer might be able to figure out how to use? If so, posting it to the main talk page could be of use to a future editor. ––Agyle (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the actual lists (e.g., List of Salticidae species (A–C)) are yet tagged or included in this nomination, only the master navigational list that links to those lists. postdlf (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll try to add them shortly. Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support. Having the list(s) available for editing by people connected with Wikipedia gives one way of keeping data easily available and also for making notations on matters under dispute, why Wikipedia articles have chosen to give priority to one or another disputed interpretation, etc. Nobody who knows what is going on in current attempts to revise species designations to conform to new research would expect to find a final answer to any question. P0M (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick0Moran: The data is already available under each of the genus articles. Why do we need a consolidated list? We don't have list articles for any other groups of organisms this big (at least that I have ever seen). Kaldari (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Keep this as a user subpage - for technical reasons. Indeed, having this list seem excessive and redundant. In theory, it would be sufficient to only have a normal hierarchy of articles that reflects biological classification. But we even have List of Salticidae genera with sub-articles! That's enough. However, the list still may be handy for technical reason, e.g. for running the scripts. However, this is something Kaldari and Sarefo should decide. My very best wishes (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If so wished, I could put it under my user account. The main point of the list is to make it easy to have a wikified version that is up to date. --Sarefo (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not support (Weak Keep). To anyone saying WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which of the six criteria do you think this violates? On the flip side, in WP:LISTPURP, the purpose of lists, I see it as qualifying in two of the three main purposes: navigation and development. In many cases, navigation and development both seem better served by the list of genera, and the species is simply duplicative, but for finding which species actually have articles, the species lists would take a 550 fewer clicks, so they do have an advantage for at least some uses. Kaldari's argument about maintainability is almost convincing, but 560 genera articles seem much harder to maintain than the 8 species lists; List of Salticidae genera says it hasn't been updated since 2008, so it's either incorrect or even more out of date than list of Salticidae species. A sensible approach to maintenance of the species lists might be to make a Unix script (somewhat like a macro, if you're unfamiliar with them), which would reformat another web page's species list(s) into the format for WP articles, and post the script in the Talk section for future maintainers to use once in a while. I might actually give that a go, except that both the species and genus lists seem like they're likely WP:COPYVIO violations, unless WP has permission from The World Spider Catalog to copy their data. Even lists/collections of facts are subject to copyright. If there is a copyright problem, itis.gov or another source could provide less comprehensive data. ––Agyle (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. How would "less comprehensive" look like? A complete list is a complete list, so I don't see any way to do this. The WSC contains bibliographical information not included in the wiki pages, doesn't that count as "incomplete"? If I would compile it myself, I would end up with the exact same list. What if only the genera were compiled from the WSC, would that be COPYVIO? Not trying to be snappy, just want to get a feeling for this. I don't have time to delve into this right now, but I could provide anyone with the script if so desired. --Sarefo (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- He may be referring to the geographic information. Anything else would be pretty much impossible to present any differently, and thus would not be eligible for copyright protection in the U.S. Kaldari (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding what to include in or exclude from a given classification system can be somewhat arbitrary; I doubt any of the major classification sources agree on everything. If you're being precise, all you can say is it's a complete list of species from a given source, at a particular time. It would be vague to say "this is a complete species list" without a footnote of qualifications, and it would be perfectly correct to say "this is a complete list of species included in ITIS as of January 13 2014," even if it's very different from other lists. Concerning the legal minutia of copyrights of collections of data, protection hinges on whether there were subjective choices involved in what to include in the data. I don't know how Dr. Platnick gathers his data, but if he makes subjective decisions on which taxa to accept and which to reject, or which binomial authorities to credit, it is exceptionally unlikely that your own independent decision-making would result in precisely the same list. On the other hand, if he relies entirely on publicly released, public domain data from a third party, then that portion of his data would not be protected. This has a more detailed layperson explanation. ––Agyle (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. From List articles: "Such lists do qualify as encyclopedic: for many of these genera there are specialized monographs to assist in the identification of these species." None of the categories of WP:NOTDIR apply here. It is plausible, although unlikely, that someone might come to Wikipedia and find the list useful, even in its outdated state. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's specifically referring to species lists in genus articles, which we already have for all genera under Salticidae. Kaldari (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay, I see what you mean. Even the largest genus article, "Habronattus", has a list of its species. Changed to "Delete". Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Salticidae genera. It seems silly to have what is essentially the same information listed in two different places, which as the nom points out, will lead to errors and inconsistencies. Listing them all under the genera articles and having a list of those will reduce the amount of maintenance required and increase the accuracy of the information. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I now have the new version (WSC 14.5, 2014) ready. It's 2400 lines long. I agree that this list is not terribly useful for the general reader, however it is a good resource for editors updating genus articles: they can just cut+paste the respective genus into the article this way. One way it was supposed to be used was to link to the respective genus subsection from the genus "Number of species" link, so a user can easily see what the most recent state of the genus is. But when somebody (for valid reasons) split the file up into eight pieces, that kind of broke, because the genus page links point to subsections of the main "List of Salticidae species" page. That said, is there any place I could put it that is accessible to the spider project, but is not interfering with Wikipedia style guidelines? --Sarefo (talk) 05:45, 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) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Currency Direct[edit]

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

This is an advert. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this company despite the awards that are indicated. -- Whpq (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 10th place in an annual Small Companies award which invites nominations, and regional finalists in another are not in themselves evidence of notability and I am finding nothing better. (Also noting this is a WP:SPA article with a likely WP:COI.) AllyD (talk) 14:59, 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 NO CONSENSUS. Ugh, what a mess. A lot was said here, most of it off-topic. Ultimately, there were only two people making cogent arguments for deletion, and that's not enough to delete. So, keep the article for now, with no prejudice if somebody wants to bring this back to AfD at some point in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Sharaz[edit]

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

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

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

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

In accordance with the criteria for musicians and ensembles:

1. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Page cites a single about.com interview and I can't find others. Whether an about.com subdomain blog is non-trivial is debatable.

2. Has reportedly had a remix appear briefly on a Billboard genre chart but citations may not be reliable.

3. Has not had a gold record.

4. Has not had non-trivial coverage of a international/national concert tour.

5. Has not released two or more albums on a major record nor one of the more important indie labels.

6. Is not an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, nor a musician who has been a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

7. Has not become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style, nor the most prominent of a local scene of a city. (Note: this kind of needs sources for it to be a reason to keep the article.)

8. Has not won, nor been nominated for a major music award. The page cites him as a nominee for something called the International Dance Music Awards at the Winter Music Conference but this is arguably not a major award.

9. Has not won, nor placed in a major music competition.

10. Has not performed music for a work of media that is notable.

11. Has not been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio nor music television network.

12. Has not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across national radio nor TV network.

This article was recently a PROD which was contested (by a removal of the template) but I agree it is not notable enough for WP. Radiodef (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP doesn't make a distinction as to what "genre" a Billboard charted track shows up in, only that the artist in question has some kind of measurable chart success. There is also no minimum time the work stays on the charts. In this case it was several weeks with one week at #1 - WP only specifies that the work be charted, not a #1 or a Top 20 single or album. The subject is a dance music artist and his achievement showed up, appropriately, on Billboard's Dance Music chart.

The IDMAs are considered of particular note over on the Wiki EDM page. These are significant awards for artistic achievement in electronic music since there is no such thing as the electronic dance Grammys or an AMW specifically for dance music. This is EDMs version of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I also vote KEEP. I've read the requirements and it's clear this artists work has been charted on Billboard which is one of the litmus tests for inclusion on WP. One one requirement is necessary. -Art Davis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.209.13.66 (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Exactly what was being advertised? Can you expand on that please because reading the entry and also previous versions seem to read like any other artist page (I.e. Avicii, Skrillex, etc). I didn't find any links to anything for sale or being advertised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B11C:CA19:94FB:7EFC:677B:B57A (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was being advertised was the artist's picture at the very top of the [Electronic Dance Music] page. It was by no means, a good picture. The picture quality wasn't great, nor was the subject. However, due to some anonymous users vehemently re-linking the picture to the top of the page seemed to indicate advertising. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 04:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how you deem this an "advertisement" when the photo has there since 2006 - the majority of those seven years without any reference at all to the artist actually in the photo. I am the one who tagged him in the photo as it was only appropriate to do so. Apparently that irritated you enough to come over here to raise questionable objections and try to get his page deleted. Your snarky comment above: "The picture quality wasn't great, nor was the subject" just reinforces my suspicion your motives for deletion are of a personal nature and not academic. I really don't know what gives you the authority to show up out of the blue and remove a photo that has been there for seven years under the objection that it was an "advertisement". It's hardly such if the photo sat anonymous all this time. I'll probably reinstate it again when I get a few minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would like to remove the PROD flag and deletion notice within the next 24 hours unless someone can provide proof the article about Billboard is a fake or somehow inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoma665 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No objection here to removing the the deletion tags. Can someone please reinstate his association with Afrika Bambaataa and the link to his mention of producing for him in Electronic Music Magazine? Not sure why this was removed - probably a subversive tactic make it appear there is no other notable production accomplishment regarding the artist. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I went through the entire list of references, and only one of them could even remotely pass as reliable. Seems as though a few unregistered users are attempting to keep it up by posting photos of the subject on other pages, and using his page as advertisement. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 06:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to organize this page a little more. I'd really like to see some input from a more experienced user about why to keep the page, as the IP addresses posting here aren't familiar with our standards for notability involving references. Just to add, it seems as if the IP addresses have been following this artist for a while. Association, a few scattered nominations, and remixes don't make a notable artist. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd really like to see some input from a more experienced user about why to keep the page..." I agree. Without making accusations of only WP:SPA, it is worthwhile to note that all editors wanting to keep the page either have no edit history or have a strong history of primarily editing the page in question.

As for the standards of notability, #2 states: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." The Bradenton Herald article referenced above does definitively discuss the artist's production being cause for the Billboard charting. Doing garden variety remixes are one thing, having remixes commissioned by the subsidiary of a major label and then having that remix not only chart on Billboard, but end up in the #1 slot is significant. I don't come up with the rules here but this satisfies the requirement. If the IDMA are not of note, then no one will have any objection to me blanking its mention from the electronic dance music page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He had a remix of his end up on someone else's album end up on Billboard, not his own album or his own single. This does not meet the standards of notability, plain as day. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 20:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can bring something substantive to the conversation, I'm removing the deletion tags. WP doesn't make the distinction you're talking about. For instance, Dr. Luke produces music for other people that ends up on Billboard - his name is only in production or writing credits. You're muddying the roles of artist vs producer. Sharaz's production work...ended up on Billboard, and this is absolutely no different. If you cannot make this very basic logical connection, that's your problem, not mine or Mr. Sharaz's. Again, unless you have something substantive and relevant to talk about, let's move on. To avoid this going into perpetuity, I suggest you move on to greener pastures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Wikipedia rules, you can't actually remove the tags. So if you do, I'll be warning you for Vandalising the page. This is what goes on on Wikipedia, if someone believes (as Radiodef and I) an article to not meet the criteria for notability, then we follow the rules of WP:AFD. Just because you don't believe it is correct that DJ Sharaz's page should be deleted does not mean you have the ultimate say in whether to keep his page or not; hence, the process we have here. If you don't like the rules here, please move along, and have a wonderful rest of your day. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 02:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove the AFD template. We have been through this before. For that matter, removing the template does not close the AFD and the template will just be replaced by a bot like the last time you tried to remove the template. An AFD can only be closed by a moderator. Radiodef (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your counterpoints get weaker and weaker which is why you've stopped responding to valid points. You have nothing else. Go meddle with someone who won't address your ridiculous arguments and fabrications. Why did you delete the Afrika Bambaataa reference from Electronic Music Magazine? Scared it might bolster the other side's defense? You still haven't responded to this. You and RadioDef have been removing article information on the DJ Sharaz page to fit your position (whilst accusing others', including myself, of "advertising" the subject with zero proof to back up your assertions) - which makes both of you complicit in willful obfuscation in order to prove your point. Again if IDMA isn't "arguably" a notable award why don't you remove the reference from the EDM page where you like to troll so much? Seems you should probably stick to military history and leave the EDM music discussion to those of us who actually know what's going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The song in question was a retail single, not an album - please do proper research! Mr. Violin deemed this page "unnotable" when he blanked the photo over at the Electronic Dance Music page, which was before he came over here and opened the discussion. He also called the photo "self-promotion" and still hasn't explained how he arrived at that conclusion. Does he have any proof it was self promoting? Does he even know who placed the photo there and when? This was an assumption. It's quite accusatory and the allegation was cast without any proof. His comments above about the subject and the photo are bizarre. The blanking of an article mentioning the subject that appeared in a long-standing national publication covering electronic music and electronic musicians is very bothersome, especially if it was deleted by one of the editors objecting to the page. Who deleted it and why? Mr Violin also hasn't been able to successfully dispute the article deemed above as being not "reliable". Did he call the organization to see if it exists and is not a fabrication? I highly doubt this since he won't even admit to its veracity despite proof to the contrary. I think several people here have introduced valid points - I also am of the belief that the producer made the song what it was and that's why it charted where it did. The Dr. Luke analogy is a good one BTW. People produce hits for other artists, happens all the time. Sharaz produced a #1 Billboard hit for Fierce Ruling Diva. Simple as that, and I don't see where there's a basis for an argument unless the whole story is a fabrication. You can't take that accomplishment away from the guy. Not many people can say they produced a #1 Billboard track. Mr. Violin using words above like "briefly appeared on a genre chart" are unnecessary as wiki doesn't say how long a song or album needs to be charted, only that it did. Genre charts are allowed here, too, so I'm not sure why that was even mentioned. Anyway, trying to be fair and that's my view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotoma665 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly (and semi related) I've been on here for a little while and am still not sure exactly how to sign posts so my apologies but will try to do so in the future. Sotoma665 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 11:27, 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) 23:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK so let’s recap - producing a #1 Billboard single isn’t notable, producing for one of the godfathers of hip hop isn’t notable, producing singles for a subsidiary of a major record label isn’t notable, real newspaper articles verifying this don’t really exist, and if you’re not written about in TMZ’s superstar DJ blog, you’re not notable either. Oh and being nominated by one of the biggest worldwide EDM award-givers isn’t important. Not to mention that this producer traveled back in time to 2006 to plaster an anonymous image of himself on an EDM wiki page for the purpose of "self promotion". Great! I think I got it. Probably 2/3rds of the musicians (especially session musicians) on WP need to be blanked then. Forgive my sarcasm, I can’t help it after reading through this entire argument. Just so I’m clear to everyone, I feel the article be kept here on WP, the defenders have done an admirable job of telling us why the subject should stay. 174.47.33.226 (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Going down these one by one:

Producing a #1 Billboard single.

There are a number of reasons this could be a questionable reason for notability. Using Dr. Luke as an example (because somebody mentioned him), you will notice Dr. Luke production discography does not list chart history (compare to Paul McCartney discography). Dr. Luke is on WP because he has major awards and nominations and more generally has been covered in lots of publications. Note that remixing is not the same as being the artist. For matters of attribution, Billboard considers them different. Billboard considers it a #1 hit for Fierce Ruling Diva. Producing #1 hits may not be a reason for Dr. Luke to be on WP either. If DJ Sharaz had his own song on Billboard it would be different. That's just how Billboard works.

Producing for one of the godfathers of Hip-Hop.

I'm not sure what this is referring to. Tommy Boy Records? This smells like WP:PEACOCK. And as I've said before, being on a remix album is not the same thing as being on an artist roster.

Producing singles for a subsidiary of a major record label.

Again, peacock. The phrase used in the article is "remixes have been provided by Sharaz" which is not the same thing as being on an artist roster. Furthermore, I cannot find a reference for the association. All sources I can find on Google that state this use the exact same phrase and appear copy and pasted from the WP article. (For example [1] which even says "Source: Wikipedia".)

Real newspaper articles verifying this don’t really exist.

Nobody said it doesn't exist. This seems like a poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum. What has been said is the article is hosted on DJ Sharaz's personal website which makes it questionable for WP. For example, if this were allowed, then somebody could fake an article and there are absolutely people that would do that. I do not know DJ Sharaz and so I do not know if he would or would not do that. As editors we can not and do not make judgments like that so this kind of thing is not appropriate. The authenticity of the source in question can not be determined.

If you’re not written about in TMZ’s superstar DJ blog, you’re not notable either.

This is of course an exaggeration of the notability requirement but it's true that DJ Sharaz has not been covered by major news outlets.

Being nominated by one of the biggest worldwide EDM award-givers isn’t important.

There are major awards that electronic music is eligible for and many electronic artists have major awards. This is, again, peacock. DJ Sharaz had a nomination for a minor award.

Lastly, for non-involved editors that may be reading this discussion, no blanking has occurred or is intended. Calling anything blanking in this discussion is either an insinuation or ignorance of terminology. Radiodef (talk) 22:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not changing my position on the Billboard thing. His music, written for someone else for-hire on a subsidiary of a major label, was charted on Billboard. If you really want to split hairs, why don't you compare his version to the original? Red herring.

Which awards are we talking about then? You are overly broad here with no specifics, only "There are major awards that electronic music is eligible for and many electronic artists have major awards." IDMA is an industry award, overseen by EDM industry people at one of the most important EDM music conferences in the world. These are the ONLY official awards at WMC. I think you are forgetting that. You've determined it to be a minor award for the purposes of this discussion, and only to support your argument. If these are minor awards, delete its mention, please, from the EDM page. You are contradictory - it's important enough to remain there but of little importance when it comes to this artist? At least be consistent. Red herring.

No idea what peacock means, please use plain english. Some of us have lives and little time to geek around WP. You obviously have no intention of verifying the article over at the supplying newspaper, only to keep harping on where it was hosted. Considering you seem to be a online search warrior only, I'm not surprised. Something as simple as picking up the phone to verify with the news outlet would be sufficient - instead you'll waste everyone's time and energy here with another red herring. Call The Bradenton Herald and ask for a copy. 941-748-0411 is their phone number. Until then stop saying "The authenticity of the source in question can not be determined." You've been provided a way to accomplish this.

As I said previously, this seems like a personal vendetta - basically you got upset I tagged a seven year old EDM photo with someone whom you don't like. And yes, you blanked the article to EMM with regard to Afrika Bambaataa, not Tommy Boy (if you'd read the comments above you would have known this). Not sure why you did that, but it appears to me an attempt to gut the article so it looks as if few or no citations exist (which is basically a lie) and ultimately achieve your objective of deleting the page. There's probably some kind of rule around here prohibiting that kind of subversion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the notability guidelines for music are not hard and fast rules. As stated in the guideline istelf, Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. I don;t see that he has won any significant awards; he as a remix chart on a minor Billlboard chart; hasn't had a lot of coverage in independent reliable sources. As such, I don't see that notability is met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does "minor" have to do with the context? There's no distinction here, only your own. On the flipside, the Billboard Hot Dance Singles Chart is the most prestigious and the most well-known of all dance charts, and probably the most difficult to crack. So it's not "minor" as you say (which shouldn't factor in at all). So, by that measure, it's a major chart and a major accomplishment with regard to this style. This chart position is quoted in quite a few other EDM bios as well. So are the IDMAs. One set of rules for one group of people, another set of rules for the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.22.244 (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. However I would be much more inclined to give the naysayers a little more weight if it didn't appear all of them are very poorly versed about the EDM scene & they know even less about Florida EDM/break beat history. With all due respect, I am not interested in listening to a bunch of people who spend their days editing military pages telling us what is and what is not important in the EDM scene. Their Wikipedia editing history seems to have very little to do with what we are talking about here. It appears to me all three contributors suggesting deletion spend nearly all of their time editing pages dealing with military and war history, not dance music or EDM, let alone breakbeat history. This should not be a learn as you go endeavor for them. 2600:1006:B111:6166:5A5:2F0E:68D9:3124 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the majority of my edits occur on Military History-related subjects, does not mean that I cannot tell if an article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While yes, I do not have as much experience with Florida's EDM/Breakbeat history, I do however, understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Vice versa, the only ones voicing opinion for this page to be kept are all unregistered IP's that have not been around Wikipedia enough to understand the correct notability guidelines. Just because one has followed someone's career for 15 years does not make them notable. ṜedMarkViolinist^{Drop me a line} 00:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you may have, as you say, experience with WP's notability guidelines, you obviously are having a difficult time resolving the relative importance of certain happenings within the EDM community. Way before this was turned into the commercialized circus it is today, EDM was made of up primarily independent artists and labels (it actually still is for the most part although you wouldn't know that by casually looking around). For ANY independent, self-funded artist to make his or her way to a major label, or even positIon #100 on any Billboard chart (even the niche ones) back then was a huge accomplishment. These artists didn't have endorsement deals, PR agents, access to Top 40 radio and lots of coverage like they do today, so I would say it's somewhat disingenuous to look at it from that point of view, rather try and view it by what was occurring at the time. I've been to the Winter Music Conference around 10 or 11 times and I'm one of the few people who actually go there to join the panels, and the IDMAs are considered pretty much top of the food chain within that industry. Just because they've started giving highly publicized Grammy awards to DJs, that should not trivialize the importance of an IDMA within the scope of the electronic music industry itself (like IFMCAs with regard to music composed for film) - industry peer awards like these are extraordinarily important, and that type of nomination or award carries enough weight to further the producer's career. In other words, there are some things specific to EDM being waved off here that are not as insignificant as you wish to believe. By Grammy or American Music Awards standards IDMA is tiny. But with regard to that particular piece of the industry, it's one of the biggest awards there is. By the way, I've not been just following this artist, but quite a few of them for the better part of a decade and a half. They are very small by Rihanna standards but are hugely important and influential to people who have spent a lot of time following this type of music. As far as being unregistered, I simply do not want another user name and password in my life - I have a hard enough time keeping track of them as it is. 108.9.22.244 (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barrett M82. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special Application Sniper Rifle[edit]

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

Article is very poorly written, gives no context for why it is significant, has no references and has been sitting around for years. Zackmann08 (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge SASR is the US designation for the M82 class of weapon which lacked the tight dispersion required of a military spec sniper rifle. Generalising this to other countries may be problematic but the worst case would be merger into another article such as sniper rifle. Andrew (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like Andrew Davidson's idea of merging the article. It belongs with its own subsection (as long as it has some citations). Just my 2 cents. --Zackmann08 (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to the Barrett M82 page. The term appears to be a Barrett trademark referring to the M82 type rifle. All other uses appear to be incidental.--RAF910 (talk) 02:54, 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 merge to List of Left 4 Dead characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Riders (band)[edit]

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

This is my first time placing an article up for deletion so apologies if I'm doing it wrong. Anyway, it should be noted that this article was deleted once before on grounds that it lacked notability. This is the same reason why I'm nominating it. Its a fictional band from a video game that mainly has In Universe information in it. Can't really say much besides that. GamerPro64 22:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is on a different subject from the one in the previously deleted article. The previous incarnation of this article was about a (quoting from previous AFD) "1980s band that only released one EP". --| Uncle Milty | talk | 22:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did not notice that tidbit. But my point stands on it being non-notable. GamerPro64 22:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~Left 4 Dead 2~~ List of Left 4 Dead characters. The in-universe stuff needs to go, but the real-world details can be merged. Or delete it, I guess, but that doesn't seem entirely necessary. They get a bit of coverage in reliable sources but not what I might consider enough to save a one-shot fictional band. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Left 4 Dead characters. Seconding NinjaRobotPirate's statement that the in-universe type of writing needs to go, I do think that the band needs to go under the list of Left 4 Dead characters, specifically under Non Playable Characters. It doesn't really warrant its own article entry, but the information seems significant enough that it shouldn't be deleted altogether. TsukiKanade (talk) 02:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's probably a better merge target. I've updated my comment. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:20, 25 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) 00:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 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) 00:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Lummus[edit]

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

Artist seems to be using this Wikipedia profile as an extension of her website (it's linked from her About Me page). I can't see any reliable secondary coverage abut her or her work online. I don't know what weight you put on the claim she's appeared in the "Who's Who" publications - even if this is true, they seem to rely on self-submitted profiles...? Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Sionk (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The editor of the small lifestyle magazine Cincinatti used to like to like her in the '80s, but I didn't find anything else to suggest notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found her in two newspaper articles via HighBeam, 2 Texas Monthly magazine articles in 1979 and a couple of other sources (google search). She is mentioned as a participant in exhibitions -- nothing lately, and does not appear to be enough to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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) 07:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of female Transformers[edit]

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

This is a redundant grouping of characters. There are 26 other lists for this franchise, and these characters are covered within the relevant ones. There is nothing asserting that the topic of "female Transformers" is particularly notable, so there is no need to list them in this fashion. TTN (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because highlighting this grouping makes sense in the course of our coverage of this franchise. The animators and other TF went out of their way to design these robot characters as expressly female, in a franchise (and toy line) that is targeted to boys and that features characters that are all otherwise implicitly male or masculine (both in terms of visible character design and voice actors). The first such female TF characters were even introduced as a group in a single cartoon episode. Whether this can or should be handled within the context of a larger list is a question for normal editing and discussion, but this grouping makes sense regardless. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two days ago there was an article in The Mary Sue about the backlash over the creation of a new female Transformer. As independent media are recognizing this grouping and there are sufficient sources to engage the topic encyclopedically, this should be kept. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 00:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Convinced by the previous votes. --Crazy runner (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor#Sexual dysfunction. While most participants wrote "Delete/Merge", these are mutually exclusive actions. The closest approximation is a redirect, allowing users to merge from the redirected article's history as desired. Sandstein 21:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction[edit]

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

The entire article is based on roughly a dozen case reports of unclear causality, original research extrapolating from animal and in vitro studies, and a single review article
The review article is of poor quality.
- It consists mainly of a recap of the above case reports, a review of internet message board commentary, and some speculative re-interpretations of the results of clinical trials in premature ejaculation.
- It was written by a student health center counselor with no apparent background in pharmacology, apparently as the sole publication on which he has served as lead author
- It was published in a non-Pubmed indexed journal that requires evaluation by only a single peer reviewer. http://www.benthamscience.com/open/topsyj/articles/V001/42TOPSYJ.pdf

Thus first and foremost, we have an entire article that lacks even a single WP:MEDRS compliant citation. I have searched for and not found better references, including a PubMed search for "SSRI sexual persistent", "SSRI sexual post-treatment", "fluoxetine sexual persistent", "fluoxetine sexual post-treatment", "antidepressant sexual persistent" and "antidepressant sexual post-treatment".

Second, given the very limited number of case reports (many of which come from a single academic group) from among literally hundreds of millions who have used these drugs, and the complex interplay of physiological, psychological, and environmental factors in human sexual motivation, it seems to me that the evidence for the existence of this syndrome is marginal at best.

Third, even if real, it seems undue weight to have an entire article dedicated to a side effect reported in a dozen individuals among hundreds of millions who have taken these drugs. The existence of a separate article on this subject (that is hyperlinked to the fluoxetine and SSRI articles) incorrectly leaves readers with the impression that it is both real and commonplace. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to SSRI-- delayed or absent orgasm, decreased libido... these are definitely side-effects of SSRI during therapy, not sure about persistent effects. If the article referencing is poor then we should consider merging any salvageable content (i.e. based on MEDRS source) to SSRI. Lesion (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per above. --LT910001 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, merge anything salvegeable into SSRI and redirect to the relevant subsection. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to SSRI yes, well-recognised side effects, but should be sufficiently discussed in side effects section of main SSRI article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per above. Given the lack of WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, an article on possible side-effects seems unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the number of reported cases is (currently) small, I disagree that the sources don't meet WP:MEDRS. The subject is a legitimate split from SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Miniapolis 21:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also concerned, in light of the nominator's contribs, about a possible conflict of interest. Miniapolis 21:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mini

I have no COIs to report.
I discussed this article with and sought feedback from one of the Wikipedia Medicine Project Admins prior to proposing this article for deletion. In fact, the suggestion that I consider submitting this article for deletion came out of that conversation.
As such, I respectfully request the benefits of WP:GF, which I believe the rules of this forum entitle me to in any case.

Can you offer some examples of what you feel are the highest quality sources referenced in the article? Its difficult to respond to a broad statement like "I disagree that the sources don't meet WP:MEDRS". The vast majority are primary references, case reports, or references to in vitro and animal studies. Which do you feel are strong enough to support a conclusion that this syndrome is widely accepted as a real clinical entity within the medical community, and that it is either severe enough or common enough to merit its own article rather than being swept into the main SSRI article?

Getting specific will allow us to better identify points of agreement and disagreement. Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your declaration that you have no conflict of interest with this subject, since you had previously done considerable anonymous editing and many IPs do so for professional reasons. WP:MEDRS is an ideal, and this article has a number of references to peer-reviewed journals including Journal of Sex Research, Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology and Journal of Sexual Medicine; the fact that most studies to date have been on rats is (IMO) irrelevant to the subject's notability. I'm curious as to why you chose to nominate this article, in particular, for deletion. All the best, Miniapolis 15:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mini

Thanks for your response.

I picked this article to submit for deletion for the reasons I mentioned in the initial nomination: It lacks references that would support the conclusion that the existence of this syndrome is an accepted part of mainstream medical thought, and there are only about a dozen published case reports from among the >100 million people who have taken these drugs over the last 20-30 years. As such, it seems questionable to me whether it is undue wt to include a discussion of this proposed syndrome in the SSRI article, let alone give it its own freestanding article. To quote the relevant parts of MEDRS:

"Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentioned in other articles." - All but 3 or 4 individual patient case reports describing this phenomenon and the only review of clinical data supporting its existence have come from a single group of collaborators at the University of Iowa (Csoka AB, Bahrick AS)

"Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources."

"Other indications that a journal article may not reliable is its publication in a journal that is not indexed in the bibliographic database MEDLINE"

I would agree with your assertion that MEDRS is an ideal and not a bright line. But the sources quoted in this article all seem to me to be well out of the grey zone, with the overwhelming majority falling within classes that the MEDRS guideline specifically calls out as unreliable. However, its quite possible that I missed something. Let's focus on the sources cited by the article that you feel best meet MEDRS guidelines. That would seem to be the most succinct way to address this issue. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I have no COIs to report" is not quite the same as "I have no COI". While I'm trying my best to AGF, I can't help wondering if you may have a connection to an SSRI manufacturer (BTW, I found a link to this article—and its AfD discussion—while reading its parent article and have no dog in this fight). I'm going to let this discussion run its course. All the best, Miniapolis 21:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HI Mini,

I appreciate your concerns and your efforts to be civil in spite of them. Would it be helpful if I pointed out that virtually all of the SSRIs are now off-patent, manufactured as commodity products by generics companies, and sold for pennies a pill? In 2012, the only commerically important antidepressants from Pharma's point of view were lexapro and cymbalta, both of which lost patent protection in December 2012. http://beta.fool.com/ereports/2013/07/18/the-us-antidepressant-market-old-fashion-branding/38408/

Under the circumstances, I'm not quite sure how anyone would have a financial COI with respect to SSRIs. It would be like having a COI with respect to aspirin, penicillin, or for that matter, cement. Best Formerly 98 (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for butting in on this, however I would really appreciate it if this article could just be improved in some way to address concerns, rather than being deleted. One of the main objections to this article seems to be lack of case studies, and lack of people officially listed as having the condition. Did you ever consider that this attitude is nearly universal? Sexual sides are greatly under reported too. I remember seeing a study about that. Everything has to start somewhere, and without even having an entry on this website, psychiatrists will feel confident in their denialism. If we are truly being scientifically skeptical (let alone philosophically), we must acknowledge that this MAY exist, rather than dismiss it out of hand. This is a falsifiable claim, so I think dismissal on the grounds that we don't know enough isn't valid. I can tell you I have talked to more than 200 people who claim to have PSSD, and that is just the people who chose to sign up on my forum. Of those people, I am nearly certain that at least half have it, but more likely 2/3. The rest I think just have depression and/or anxiety. There are hundreds more on a yahoo group. Speaking just for myself, I can tell you that bupropion 300mg per day relieves my mild depression, and does little for PSSD. I can however get an hour of 90 to 100% relief with 60mg of buspirpone on an empty stomach, albeit at the cost of severe lightheadedness. It works EVERY time. What I want however, is research that leads to a drug acting on the 5HT1A receptor with less sides and better bio-availability. It would be much like cialis is for a man with ED. DIY medical research has serious limitations, but it's all there will ever be if we continue having to fight denialism. Let me go with this approach too. Is it controversial to state that an SSRI desensitizes the 5HT1A receptor? Would it therefore be physiologically impossible for it to remain so (I'm pretty sure this was even proven in rats)? Isn't it well known that this ultimately inhibits dopamine release, and that dopamine has a lot to do with experiencing sexuality? Would it therefore be unreasonable to request this article not be deleted, but instead simply add language stating the concerns of there being very little documented evidence such as case studies, and most existing evidence is self-reported by people whose claims are routinely dismissed out of hand? Or whatever similar language you deem proper. Thank you for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.94.105 (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 76, how would you feel about merging this into a section in the parent SSRI article? Realizing this issue is close to your heart, and setting aside my own skepticism for a moment, I think we probably agree that the number of people who believe they are affected by this is a very small fraction of the hundred million or so people who have taken SSRIs. I'm open to acknowledging that it is possible that this is a real effect of SSRIs but usually stuff doesn't go into Wikipedia until its established as mainstream medical thought. Also, if we create a separate article for each side effect of every drug, no matter how rare that side effect is, things are going to get crowded around here. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separate is probably better, but merging could be alright if it is given enough space and subsections. At the risk of being pedantic, I would say there is no reason to set aside skepticism, but merely to give consideration to a yet undetermined possibility which you consider to be less likely. I do understand there are reasons to think it's all nonsense. I would agree it is a small fraction. I'm virtually certain it's less than .1%, but more than .01%. While this is far from reaching the critical mass for a paradigm shift, it's not totally fringe or physiologically impossible. Although I admit most PSSD people believe in the most obviously ridiculous things and tend towards a Luddite-like attitude in regard to medical science, and are notorious for belief in the naturalistic fallacy. If this was a single side effect, I certainly wouldn't consider it worthy of more than a casual mention. However, it is the persistence of several side effects. Usually in PSSD, a few side effects persist after discontinuing, frequently to a lesser degree. I have heard of people who have the same severity, but usually it just gets partially better rather than returning to how it was prior to use. I would be inclined to disbelieve people who had no side effects while on it, but then got them when coming off (excluding the separate discontinuation syndrome). I think acknowledging that it is currently outside the mainstream, while at the same time acknowledging its existence, what we know about it, and leading hypotheses, as well as links to related topics which are mainstream such as the neurology on which the hypotheses are based, would be the right idea. My only concern on merging would be the bias that might exist in the mind of a person passionate enough about SSRIs to maintain its article, although admittedly the criticism section is fair. The final issue is that discontinuation has its own article, but those issues go away in time, and not all SSRIs cause that. Or perhaps knowledge of the subject is the sole criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.94.105 (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks, given your strong interest in this subject your note is remarkable for its restraint and willingness to see the other side of the issue. There are a lot of rules here about the level of evidence required to support medical claims, but I'd be the first to say that the stringency with which they are enforced is inconsistent.

I'm pretty conservative about these issues of evidence and mainstream acceptance myself, and don't see Wikipedia as a tool for enlightening the medical community about non-mainstream theories. That being said, I would not be adamantly opposed to taking the article as it stands, removing most of the references to in vitro and animal data, and merging it with the SSRI article. I'd also be open to the idea of creating a "Sexual side effects of SSRIs" article and having this material incorporated there as no more that 25% of the total text. But I don't want to be the one who writes it.

I proposed this article for deletion, but do not have final decision making power over what happens next, the admins decide that. Right now it looks like there is a consensus for "merge the better parts of this article into the SSRI article". I'm fine with that.

To be honest, if your goal is to increase the credibility of this as a real syndrome, I don't think a Wikipedia article is an effective tool. You have an interesting asset in the form of your Yahoo user group that I would think could be used for some interesting research, especially if you could get someone who studies human sexuality involved who is not one of the current proponents of the concept. I'd be happy to share a few thoughts on this if you want to email me through my user page. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:16, 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 no consensus, defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World News (WN) Network[edit]

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

Non-notable website. The only significant independent coverage I was able to find was the Search Engine Watch article already cited, and being from 2003, it isn't very useful for describing the website as it is today. wctaiwan (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the past may have been a legit news source, but currently exists solely to generate pageclicks, screw up web search results through SEO and contains no original content of its own. Nate • (chatter) 21:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Poor quality is not grounds for deletion. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Pburka (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they had poor quality content, but that they had little to none; they exist mainly to compile RSS feeds together to misdirect web searches towards them. Nate • (chatter) 23:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You missed my point. The content (or lack thereof) is irrelevant. That's not how we judge notability for this effort. Pburka (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomm BlueSalix (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WNN consists of more than wn.com, which you wouldn't get from the current terrible article. They also run oil.com, broadcasting.com, filmnews.com, economicnews.com, many other industry-specific sites, and locality-specific sites like riodejenaro.com. Pretty consistently low-quality sites, as has been mentioned, oriented toward click revenue and search engine optimization. They have a lot of non-significant coverage, are cited in many references (including magazines and a dozen or two books), and included in many resource lists (e.g. some libraries, including the Library of Congress) and I'd say at least a dozen books, for example:

Steven M. Cohen (January 2003). Keeping Current: Advanced Internet Strategies to Meet Librarian and Patron Needs. American Library Association. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-8389-0864-8.
Richard Sutz (28 July 2009). Speed Reading For Dummies. John Wiley & Sons. p. 222. ISBN 978-0-470-55051-9.
Courtney Thurman; Ashlee Gardner (25 April 2006). Great Big Book of Business Lists. Entrepreneur Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-59918-007-6.

However, none of this is not notable coverage about the company in itself. I do think the quality of the site should be irrelevant, as should its deterioration relative to competitors (e.g., it preceded Google News, which blows it away); if it was notable in 2000, I'd consider it still historically notable. However, it's not clear that it was notable in 2000, according to either WP:GNG or WP:WEBSITE. ––Agyle (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Forbes listed it as one of its four "best of the web" international news sites in 2000. Not a major award, but it seems to have been included in a number of high profile "short lists" of news sources in the 2000s, which by themselves fall short of WP:WEBSITE notability, but are a bit more than trivial. I'd also estimate that citations referencing articles on wn.com appear in several dozen books, and 100 academic journal articles and other papers (search scholar.google.com for "article.wn.com" and look at about 300 links to manually filter out the non-academic PDFs etc.), and while the citations in all likelihood should have referenced the original sources, the fact that so many independent, reputable sources do in fact reference wn.com, though admittedly incidentally, distinguishes this from most aggregation sites. ––Agyle (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Forbes article seems to establish notability. It was also referenced in this article from Information Today: [2]. Because of the 11-year span between the two mentions, this does not appear to be a brief moment of fame… (on the other hand maybe such a long time between means that it's not worth an article!) But still, I think that Forbes especially says Keep. (My 2¢.) Goldenshimmer (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought, it should be moved to World News Network. Goldenshimmer (talk) 07:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's debatable whether Information Today satisfies our standards for reliable sources. wctaiwan (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

wctaiwan, yeah, not sure about that one either. I think Forbes is fair game though, and probably The Guardian too…. (Also, not really relevant to anything but it seems that there is some original news that is posted, attributed to Dallas Darling and collected at [3], so I guess it's not only an aggregator.) Goldenshimmer (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think we don't have (and would likely not have) sufficient sources to create an article that adequately describes the current website in a manner that satisfies WP:V. At best we'd have a stub with a couple of sentences listing each of the mentions people have found, and personally I don't find that beneficial. wctaiwan (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to describe the current website? Describing it as it was in 2000 is sufficient. Notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL is not a reason to delete. Pburka (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL specifically advises against arguing about usefulness without a rationale. To spell it out, it's not beneficial because the end product would look like "World News Network is an online news aggregator. In 2000, Forbes named it in its Best of the Web awards.[ref] In 2003, The Guardian listed it in...[ref] It was included in [book]..." A reader gains no meaningful understanding of the subject from such an article--it would just be a list of assertions of (borderline) notability. Enough to keep it from being deleted, maybe, but of no benefit to the reader. wctaiwan (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue usefulness is sufficient, but since you're suggesting it's not useful, I do find even brief stub articles like that useful when ascertaining the reliability of sources. Wn.com turns up in hundreds of bibliographies, and other WNN sites (cities.com, filmnews.com, dubai.com, etc.) combined probably turn up even more than that. Learning those citations were to a news aggregator rather than an original news source could be all I'd want to know. Similar to relatively un-notable book publishers...even pay-to-print vanity press publications get mentioned in more reliable sources, and knowing it's pay-to-print is usually all I want to know about such companies. ––Agyle (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:Agyle makes an interesting point regarding reliable sources. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that we should lean towards keeping articles about potential sources to Wikipedia. Although the notability (as shown by coverage in reliable sources) is marginal for this article, editors are likely to want to refer to the article to determine the reliability of the subject as a source. Pburka (talk) 02:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP is an encyclopediza, not a directory, and that means we cover not just what is important in the present, but what ever has been earlier. And as pointed out, the current article needs considerable expansion. Something rated as particularly important by a discriminating source meets the requirements for notability,

I also agree with Agyle's argument about including articles very generously on publishers, news sources, and the like." It's useful" in the context of the world in general is not a reason to keep; but it's useful in the context of reading WP is certainly a reason to keep in WP. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:24, 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) 00:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Difference between Trust and Reputation Management Systems[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 18:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed the two sections that discussed products because those sections had nothing to say about the article's topic. What's left isn't advertising, but I'm not sure what to make of it. It doesn't seem like a proper article but I can't put my finger on why. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails as a how-to article and as original research. Not a bad idea for an essay in a popular mechanics magazine. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no doubt interesting differences between Trust management (information system)s and Reputation management systems, but this article seems to advance a particular non-neutral point of view without discussing general issues or even definitions. The author's other article, Vulnerabilities of Reputation Management Systems has a similar problem. This is probably a notable topic; secondary sources such as [4] exist on which to base an article. But this article would need to be completely rewritten to be more encyclopedic in exposition and neutral in content. --Mark viking (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT. Topic might a bit notable, although I suspect it should be enough to mention the differences in the two parent articles. Present content wholly fails WP:SYN and WP:NOTESSAY. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's just no need for an article about the difference between similar things. The material, if it has any value, can be in each of the individual articles. SchreiberBike talk 07:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The common meaning of Reputation management is the use of editing and linking to make a company or person look as good as possible. Trust management usually means financial management of trusts. A less common use of Trust Management involves a system for deciding how trustworthy another computer is in a network. This meaning and Reputation Management are really quite different things and there is no meaningful comparison. It may be that the meanings may shift and become more like what is claimed in this article, but that isn't the way the words are used at the moment. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Godzilla vs. Destoroyah. Delete & redirect to Godzilla vs. Destoroyah. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Destoroyah[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Godzilla vs. Destoroyah through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Godzilla vs. Destoroyah or delete. Not notable. I don't see any English coverage, but I guess there might be offline or Japanese sources. In that case, it can be recreated with sources that demonstrate notability. Google Books results look like they're all Wikipedia articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:55, 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) 00:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1998 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights[edit]

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

No need for a list of each and every channel that showed the matches of the 1998 FIFA World Cup. It is (almost) never the individual channel that has the rights, but their parent company. And often even these have sub licences. The Banner talk 17:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could easily fit within 1998 FIFA World Cup#Broadcasting, but even then, this needs to be completely WP:TNT'ed; this article asserts every broadcaster in every nation had the local rights to the World Cup when usually only one or two broadcasters do (CBS has never carried World Cup coverage and as far as I remember, ESPN carried the Cup in 1998 with ABC only airing the Final in the US, not NBC and CBS also). Remove this falsehood of an article, or really work on making it accurate in the next seven days. Nate • (chatter) 21:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid list of notable entries on a notable topic. Compare with this list, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference is that the 2014-list only mentions the parent companies that will broadcast the games. Not each and every channel. And certainly not an excessive number of completely useless links ([5]) that needed to be fixed. The Banner talk 19:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - At that, this list from the beginning is written in a bizarre type of present tense that makes no sense for a tourney that occurred thirteen years ago. This edit for instance said it was on radio stations existing in the Grand Theft Auto games universe, and again unless required by their federal law, there's no circumstance where the broadcasters in one country are ever broadcasting every match of every part of the tournament because that's a basic waste of broadcasting and fiscally irresponsible. This is not a serious list. Nate • (chatter) 20:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - SBS TV in Australia has shown all matches of the 1998, 2006 and 2010 tournaments. Hack (talk) 01:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Nate, I see no reason to have a separate article. Giant Snowman 12:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article is already 75 kB, which according to WP:SIZERULE probably should be divided as it is. Adding another 7 kB doesn't seem to be the right approach. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You think that keeping an unreliable article is a better option? The Banner talk 11:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see the difference between keeping the article, and putting unreliable content in another article. If there are concerns about issues with the content, then fix and source. Nfitz (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - See the history how I tried to fix it but an IP keeps adding it. Even a protection did not help. The Banner talk 11:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Each WC has article about broadcasting rights. See Category:FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights and {{FIFA World Cup}}. NickSt (talk) 10:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The main difference is that the other lists don't have a reliability issue... The Banner talk 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See for an example of the non-reliability of the article this edit The Banner talk 14:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Müller[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Knappik) Rodolfinho Porto (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)— Rodolfinho Porto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. No sign of notability. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The above voter is blocked indefinitely[6] as a sockpuppet of User:Mr RD. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no valid arguments given for deletion. The subject clearly passes our general notability guideline (significant coverage in virtually all the most notable German news media) as well as the WP:ENT guideline. The comparison with Sarah Knappik carries no weight, the only thing in common is that both of them took part to the same celebrity reality show. Also please note that the nominator is a blatant sockpuppet, who created his account two minutes before nominating this article for deletion. --Cavarrone 17:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be WP:GNG. Why does someone create an account for no reason other than to AfD this article? VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have not clicked through to any of the referenced sources and so do not know for sure, but considering the titles of the referenced articles in Bild, Focus, and Ok! Magazin, and considering what the other voters have written here, the subject is almost surely notable. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She clearly passes GNG due to significant coverage in all notable German news media as participant in Ich bin ein Star – Holt mich hier raus!, which is one of the German TV show with the highest reach, more than 7 million average viewers. To argue there would be "no sign of notability" is clearly wrong. --NiTen (talk) 10:23, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Mason (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable rugby league player who fails WP:RLN, as he is yet to appear in the NRL. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has not played first grade. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet to play first grade, and perhaps never will.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aşk-ı Memnu (TV series). Sandstein 22:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ishq-e mamnoo[edit]

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

This is an article about the dubbed Urdu version of a Turkish TV series Ask-i Memnu. There should be not separate article for every dubbed version of the series, since it's the same series. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per submitter's argument; no evidence that this adaptation is historically or in any way notable other than being an Urdu-dubbed version of the series.Ithinkicahn (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aşk-ı Memnu (TV series), as most of the content is copied from original series article (that too without attribution). The title is a good redirect for those who know the show name by this spell. -- SMS ^Talk 15:10, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Usher (dance instructor)[edit]

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

Looks like impersonation of the American artiste Usher Raymond. Also he is not a notable person in Ghana SandisterTei (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The one reference given is inaccessible to me. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 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 speedy delete per G12: unambiguous copyright infringement. The article was deleted by admin Peridon (talk · contribs). Closing discussion for them. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buchi Ojieh[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines per WP:ENT. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Josh3580 so what should i do for the article not to be deleted? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Ddluv09 (talk •contribs) 16:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your talk page. —Josh3580_talk/hist 17:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12): Copyvio of http://buchitv.com/bio.html. Kolbasz (talk) 17:45, 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) 00:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandpeter[edit]

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

Notability. There is no third-party coverage. The references are unreliable. the TopDeejays chart is simply based on social media rankings; it is not a chart, it is an infinite ranking in as much as anyone can be entered in the database; it is not a 'country's national music chart'. Derek Andrews (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources to support notability. The article itself doesn't have to contain any, it's our job to find them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 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) 00:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edu-Clubs[edit]

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

Non-notable school clubs organisation. No coverage in independent reliable sources. It also appears to be a WP:PARAPHRASE unacceptable close paraphrase of the organisation's own website. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; Wikipedia is not a free web host. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No amount of verbiage can compensate for a lack of notability, and nudging the copyright doesn't help. Miniapolis 00:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep : This article is notable. Please take a look into the following details,

Notability :

First of all the the Inaguration of the Club was covered in Dinamani Siruvarmani, a reputed and leading Tamil daily in Tamil Nadu. The Inaguration of Wikipedia Club was also covered in Tamizh Computer a leading Tamil Weekly in Tamil Nadu. The digital presence of newspapers and magazines, even leading newspapers, is not available in this part of the world. If needed i will scan the pages and upload them here.

All the individual Clubs were inagurated by Scientists of ISRO, Principals of other schools and proffessors of leading autonomus Colleges in the district. The inaguration photograph shows every body and the page lists of all the poeople in detail.

The Wikipedia Club, which is one among the clus is inagurated by an administrator from Tamil Wikipedia, Theni. M. Subramani. The Oath-taking ceremony is presided by Dr. P. Nakkeeran, Director of Tamil Virtual Academy, Chennai. This event too is covered by leading Tamil newspapers.

A Group of Delegates from Wikipedia and Wikipedia India Chapter visited our school before the inaguration of the Clubs and discussed about the possible co-operation Wikipedia may able to do. Students from 4 different Clubs conducted a Photo-tour this Jan 4th around Kanyakumari district, to use the photographs as supporting materials in the mission of improving three Wikipedia articles Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari district and Nagercoil atleast as Good articles before this June.

The district administration (District Collector) of Kanyakumari district was contacted by officials from Wikimedia India Chapter and was requested to offer all possible assistance to the edu-clubs; and following up, the district administration helped us in all possible ways providing text materials, documents, old photo-graphs etc... An ad-hoc is to be created this feb 2014 including students from all clubs to speed up the editing process of the wiki articles.

Also, this Excel Group of Schools includes 3 Schools , Excel Global School, Excel Central School & Excel Higher Secondary School which are all leading schools in this district. The total student strength is 2500+ from all around the state of Tamil Nadu. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a reference from a leading Tamil daily which reports the Inauguration. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also removed several lesser level details which may not suit to the wikipedia statndards. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Our notability criteria has nothing to do with involvement of Wikipedia admins, involvement with scientits, or any of the other things you mention here with the exception of newspaper coverage. That said, I don't see enough non-trivial (i.e., "this happened, the end") third-party reliable source coverage to meet notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So at least 2 independent leading Tamil News Papers had covered the news regarding the Inauguration and subsequent events. So even though the vast coverage may be reduced the page itself may not be deleted. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now the article had been reverted to old edits which includes details those which are only covered in the newspapers. - Vaikunda Raja (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notablity. CombatWombat42 (talk) 04:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Demiurge, I wish you'd just slapped an A7 template on it! Still, delete. Routine coverage in a newspaper or two does not make for notability, contrary to popular belief. This is a totally non-notable club of student clubs. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Non-notable school organization. Might be worth a brief mention in the article about the school(s) but a standalone article is inappropriate. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not Notable.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:19, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Giant Snowman 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amara Konaté[edit]

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

~~Has not played first team football in a fully professional league, so fails WP:NFOOTY and also WP:GNG~~ JMHamo (talk) 14:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator per information provided by GiantSnowman below... JMHamo (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - according to Soccerway he has made over 40 appearances in the Lega Pro Seconda Divisione, which is listed at WP:FPL. He therefore appears to meet WP:NFOOTBALL. The article needs improving to bring up to WP:GNG standards, but not deleting. Giant Snowman 19:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:18, 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) 00:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yoel Ganor[edit]

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

Page created to promote the subject as part of a set about their business. Also included in this nomination are Orly Ganor, Ulpan-Or International and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rapid language acquisition. User who created the articles has no previous edits, and has removed CSD and prod tags from them. Number 5 7 14:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if these weren't an obvious WP:PROMO attempt, they would be merged to Ulpan-Or International, but the obviously brochure nature of that page at the moment makes the problem clear. Add in Method used by Ulpan-Or in helping people learn languages, which is a redirect at the moment only due to a different editor. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've deleted Ulpan-Or International as spam and tagged the AfC one as G11. No notability shown in any of the articles, and the refs in the personal articles are not RS. iTunes never can be, the Steinhardt one is a name check in a book listing, and the Jewish Tribune article is awash with quotes from the Ganors and precious little independent review. I've deleted the redlink redirects to Ulpan-Or International as well, by the way. Peridon (talk) 14:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. jni (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holly Michaels[edit]

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

Non notable individual. Previously Prodded as "Fails GNG/PORNBIO". This clearly still applies as she has not won any award or received any significant coverage in reliable sources. Finnegas (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A textbook example of the sort of article the most recent revisions of PORNBIO were intended to elimiate. Note that the original PROD was placed by the article creator, but removed without explanation by an IP with no other edit history, who then added copyvio promotional text to the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above comment. 173.70.37.190 (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. I'll add some information on scientific possibilities and maybe trim the fiction section. (non-admin closure) --Jakob (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monomolecular wire[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page reads like a TV Tropes article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It is part of the title of the paper Structure of a Transient Network Made up of Entangled Monomolecular Organometallic Wires in Organic Liquids. Effects of an Endcapping Molecule, gets a mention on p. 2690 of the Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science, Volume 4 and IGN ranks it the 14th coolest Sci-Fi weapon. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A cutting edge technology (:)) obviously starts as science fiction and then becomes practical reality. See Charge and Exciton Transport through Molecular Wires for another example of the latter. Andrew (talk) 16:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to dull the edge, but several of these sources suggest that repurposing the article (real molecular wires vs fictional ones) may be a better choice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this article is kept, it really needs to be turned into something other than a TV Tropes article. A rewrite that discusses the transformation of science fiction weapon to real-life research might be encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and revise as suggested. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:21, 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. Sandstein 21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Only source is amazon ([7]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:15, 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 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable, third party sources, not even an article in the book's native language version of Wikipedia, which is certainly big enough and active enough for that to be a meaningful distinction (especially as it would be useful in deciding whether or not we're simply missing the sources because they're not in English or if there simply aren't any). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently this is just a chapter listing, and would have to be started over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 22 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 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 23 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 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:12, 24 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 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I probably have to disagree with the general consensus, but I found very reliable sources. This is from the New York Times, this one from The Hindu, this journal from the Asiatic Society. The article is in a horrible state, I agree, but it is sure notable enough to be kept. I found many a source by a quick Googling. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improved the article's condition. Marked it as a stub and added references. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In those 3 sources, I only see coverage for the Judge and why he is notable, I see no mention at all of this book. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source says about it in the very beginning. Ethically ^(Yours) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see now. Well, as it mentions neither the author nor the book by name...and even if it did it would only have been a passing mention...it is insufficient in determining notability. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources found by User:Ethically Yours are not significant coverage of the book, rather about Judge Pal, that mention the book in passing. If there are significant book reviews in Japanese that would be helpful. -- GreenC 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to know about the judge and the book. The references are sufficient.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and I agree that there is no coverage in reliable, third party sources. This article should probably be merged into another article dealing with the topic at hand or be used as a bibliography citation for Indian Nationalism. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The judge is notable, but the book is not. There is evidence of significant coverage about the book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 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) 01:49, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Boucher[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 10:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence of sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn player. Reso lute 01:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A simple Google search turns up that Boucher played for the Nijmegen Devils in the 2009-2010 season when they became league champions. Aside from specialist [8] and local [9] sources, Boucher has been covered by BBC as well [10]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BBC ref is less than a hundred words and certainly falls within the routine sports coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE (as do the other two references you proffered), even if it discussed the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG requires, which it does not. As far as playing for the Nijmegen Devils go, the Eredivisie is ranked in the third tier of professional leagues, and players must satisfy Criterion #4 of NHOCKEY, which is to win "preeminent honors" -- specifically, being in the top ten all-time leading scorers or winning First Team All-Star accolades. Boucher did neither. Ravenswing 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC have longer articles on Boucher, profiling Boucher, as well [11] (which is about hockey, despite it being in the rugby section for some reason). Articles that profile a player go beyond what can be described as routine. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That one? Really can't. The section of that match report referring to the subject? "The Canadian was named man of the match as he registered 33 saves during his first shut-out of the season in Saturday's 3-0 win over Edinburgh. Cloutier told BBC Radio Humberside: "He's been one of our best players this season if not the best. "If you put him in a Sheffield side or a Belfast team with the depth they have who knows how good he would be." Cloutier added: "He's held us in so many games and if you look at the stats then we've lost by one goal in 11 out of 19 losses and if it wasn't for Boucher it could have been worse." The 28-year-old's man-of-the-match performance helped his side end a four-game losing streak." That's just a bit over a hundred words, and that's not enough to hit the GNG's notion of "significant detail" even without the roadblocks of WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE. Ravenswing 14:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:10, 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 Procedural close. This is an Articles for creation submission that is not in Wikipedia's main (article) namespace. Articles for deletion is an incorrect venue for Wikipedia namespace content (content prefixed with "Wikipedia"). Furthermore, the submission was declined in October 2013. The correct venue to nominate this for deletion is located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Unicode Bangla Hadith (ইউনিকোড বাংলা হাদিস)[edit]

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

This is written as a Website advertisement. Mehedi (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close. We can't delete what ain't here (in mainspace). It's already been rejected. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:10, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sullivan (ice hockey, born 1984)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played all but a single season of his career in the German minor leagues. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not turn up any sources on this player to meet GNG and he fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn player. It's also hilarious that article creator couldn't even be bothered to mention the German teams he played for in prose. If "played in the ECHL" is your best argument for notability.... Reso lute 01:25, 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) 00:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Simpson (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Ridiculously non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played a handful of games for semi-pro teams. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Can find no evidence of sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn player. Reso lute 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Molle[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence of sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:33, 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 speedy delete per G11 SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MXTQ is a simple concept to help SME to grow[edit]

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

Spam article for services offered by a person. The "references" are generic as well as the "article". Nothing on Google about "MXTQ" or "Mohd Diah Bin Hassin". Bgwhite (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: blatent advert by a WP:COI WP:SPA. I've flagged it as CSD G11 too. (There is also a Wikipedia:MXTQ is a simple concept to help SME to grow redirect.). AllyD (talk) 11:25, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carter (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Played exclusively in the low minors. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources which do not fail WP:ROUTINE, WP:GEOSCOPE or WP:IRS attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 09:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find no evidence of sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nn player. Reso lute 01:26, 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) 00:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Jones (ice hockey, born 1986)[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Undrafted, played without particular distinction in his brief college career and the handful of seasons he played in the minor leagues. Ravenswing 08:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any evidence of notability to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:21, 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) 00:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McCrady[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 08:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete COuldn't find anything on him to meet GNG. Fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn player. Reso lute 01:27, 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) 00:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Abney[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. Such sources as exist -- which would fail the GNG through WP:ROUTINE and WP:GEOSCOPE violations -- indicate the player's washed out of the high minor leagues, making future notability highly unlikely. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 08:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search fails to turn up any sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nn player. Not a good sign when the most significant piece of info is a failure to impress at the minor league level. Reso lute 01:28, 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) 00:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Galloway[edit]

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

Non-notable hockey player, fails WP:NHOCKEY, no evidence he passes the GNG. One of a long string of NN stubs thrown up by article creator, without apparent attempt to provide sources attesting to notability, as BLP articles require. Ravenswing 08:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search fails to turn up any sources to meet GNG and fails NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn player. Reso lute 01:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants[edit]

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

An organization that has only been mentioned tangentially in articles about the political views of the writer Kenzaburo Oe. Although this is not a make-or-break point, it is interesting to note that there is no Japanese Wikipedia article for this organization, and the claim of "8.3 million signatures" is cited to its own website. Shii (tock) 07:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't looked for sources yet, but I found the Japanese Wikipedia article at ja:さようなら原発1000万人アクション. I added the Japanese name to the article as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~. Unfortunately the news reports cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article are no longer accessible online, but I did find a few snippets about this group in more recent Japanese news sources.[12][13][14][15] The coverage isn't significant enough to persuade me that this is a definite keep, but I am assuming good faith that that the sources I couldn't gain access to have some information about the group, and when that is coupled with the sources I found it is just about enough to persuade me that we shouldn't delete this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, looking Shii's PROD rationale, it looks like the group was only mentioned briefly in the news reports cited in the article. I'm not sure if the same is true for the other news reports cited in the Japanese Wikipedia article, but judging from their titles that may well be the case. This puts my keep on much shakier ground. Is there any article we can merge this with? That may be the best solution. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And a few seconds searching turned up Anti-nuclear power movement in Japan, where this group is already mentioned. ~~So, I am going to change my recommendation to merge to that article, unless some more substantial sources turn up.~~ — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a merge. Shii (tock) 17:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing back to keep after reading the Critical Issues in Contemporary Japan source that Johnfos found below. I've used it to expand the article a bit as well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8.3 million signatures and an important, still-unfolding major controversy over nuclear energy in Japan suggest that, though still in stub form, this is a notable topic important for further development. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This argument seems like a variant of WP:BIG or WP:ITSIMPORTANT to me. Neither the number of signatures nor the strength of the nuclear controversy in Japan are good reasons for keeping the article - it's all about the coverage the topic has in reliable sources. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My rationale is similar to Mr. Stradivarius. I could not find sourcing beyond his, but what we have currently is enough to confirm the basic existence and operation of the organizations. For the purposes of notability I would agree with giving the article the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Japanese news articles tend to be deleted more quickly than in the west, so I don't holld the dead links against them. If the organization continues its activities, we should be able to find more. If none resurface after a few months, this always can be renominated. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I already prodded the article a few months ago. Oh well. If anyone can find an article that is about the organization itself I will revoke the nomination. Shii (tock) 16:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Merge any pertinent details with Anti-nuclear power movement in Japan. The Huffington Post source cited mentions Oe's activities, but does not even mention this group by name. --DAJF (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't done a comprehensive search, but this Bloomberg source [16] provides some useful history of the group: “Another severe nuclear accident could occur,” said Oe, who is among the nine founding members of the “Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants” campaign launched last June. “There is no proof it won’t happen again.” The initiative aims to collect 10 million signatures to urge the government to phase out nuclear power generation and shift to clean energy and energy-saving measures. So far, 5 million signatures have been collected, said Satoshi Kamata, a freelance journalist and another founding member. Johnfos (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, that is an incidental mention. Shii (tock) 06:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just dabbling again, and found a few new useful scholarly works: Critical issues in contemporary japan (by Jeff Kingston) and Demanding a safer tomorrow: Japan's anti-nuclear rallies in the summer of 2012, which is unfortunately behind a paywall. I'm not expecting that these will satisfy you either Shii, but they are just indications of what is out there. I think we have come a long way since you first mistakenly said that "there is no Japanese Wikipedia article for this organization" and questioned the 8.3 million figure. Prof. Kingston says over 8 million signatures were collected as of early March 2013. Johnfos (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Anthropology Today is a good citation which I hope someone can pull. That fulfills the request I made above so I will allow this nomination to be closed. Shii (tock) 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Critical Issues in Contemporary Japan has a good half-page on the organisation, which is enough to persuade me that the article should be kept. And I won't be flip-flopping this time. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Hindu had an editorial titled "Sayonara nuclear power"[17] and Japanese Time Out an article titled "Sayonara Nuclear Power Plants!",[18] both in 2012. Are these the sort of cites being sought to show notability? Rwendland (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither one is acceptable, however, sources have been found. Shii (tock) 06:29, 29 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) 00:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wiggins (philanthropist)[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail WP:N and WP:BIO. Article has only a single primary source. A quick Google did not turn up anything that looked notable but part of the problem is the subject has a common name. Article was previously marked PROD with tag subsequently removed. Single award cited does not appear to be notable. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trying to find sources for this guy is giving me "FITSI" - nothing much but press releases as far as I can see. Also, what exactly has this "philanthropist" done to warrant that title? Clarityfiend (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is not a philanthropist, for starters. Fails GNG. Looks like a poor effort at a paid job to me: pretty color picture, lame sourcing. Learn to say no. Carrite (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited award is not in itself notable in terms of WP:ANYBIO and I am finding nothing substantial on this person. AllyD (talk) 15:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Brewer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable local reporter. Winning a non notable award from a local magazine does not establish his notability. Safiel (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough sources to provide information and references on Brewer. The page needs expansion but no other information is available. Also, having only won one local award does not give him notability high enough to meet Wikipedia's requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping Dogs Lie (2006 film)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources; Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB don't count. The mere fact that it concerns a bizarre paraphilia does not by itself confer notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This film seems to meet the notability guideline because, while little coverage in reliable sources is currently in the article, such coverage does exist, for example Slant Magazine and Entertainment Weekly. Jinkinson talk to me 04:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of breweries in Connecticut[edit]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There are almost no notable entries in this list. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There is only a single bluelinked entry in this list. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There are almost no notable entries in this list. The article is basically a linkspam farm. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There are no notable entries in this list. No reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 02:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disputed WP:PROD. There is only a single bluelinked entry in this list. This is basically a linkspam farm. Wikipedia is not a directory. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this one. A list of notable entries is one way of selecting items for a list but it is not the only way as is made clear at WP:LSC and WP:CSC. In particular, CSC#2 says, astonishingly, that a valid selection criteria is Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. That is, we can have an article that collect together a group of entities none of which are notable by themselves. If this were List of hairdressers in Connecticut, or even List of bars in Connecticut, I would support the WP:NOTDIR argument. However, the number of breweries in a state is relatively small, and the list will remain manageable even if it becomes comprehensive. CSC#3 recommends that complete lists should be less than about 32kB, which this one is quite easily. According to List of breweries in the United States there are a total of 2,538 breweries which is an average of about 50 per state. CSC#3 recommends that the notabiity selection criterion should be evoked if the list reaches "hundreds of entries", which again, this one has not. The root issue here seems to be the existence of List of breweries in the United States, which is a list of lists, and encourages the creation of these articles. If we don't want them, we should start off by deleting the list of lists, but on the basis that that is not going to happen any time soon, I am !voting provisional keep. Spinning Spark 14:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that brewery names tend to be more prominently known than the names of other individual businesses because they are providing a consumer product to multiple outlets. Spinning Spark 14:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - Valid navigational function. Red links show future work to be done. Carrite (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is not hard to find reliable sources that think constructing lists of breweries in Connecticut is a worthwile activity:

Andy Couch, The Good Beer Guide to New England, ISBN 1584654694.
Elizabeth Dugger, Massachusetts & Western Connecticut Adventure Guide, ISBN 158843057X.
Steve Johnson, On Tap New England, ISBN 0962936855.

Spinning Spark 23:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - These articles need to be updated with references, not deleted. I just updated List of breweries in Connecticut and with very little effort I was able to find published references for the majority of breweries, from sources including The New York Times and The Hartford Courant. The other lists can be similarly updated. -- Zyxw (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per WP:CSC and Spinningspark. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All I agree with those above who vote "keep all." These lists are valid for navigation. It is not hard to add links to them. It probably takes less time to go web hunting and add links than it does to set up deletion nominations for twelve lists. I updated parts of several of these lists including List of breweries in California. I have worked on many lists in Wiki before and never encountered this sort of situation because WP:CSC does not demand citations on each line and states that a list may contain non-notable entries.

Please note these additional individual deletion discussions on same topic:

Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All per WP:CSC. Also, I agree with Zyxw that these articles need to be updated with references, not deleted. The problems with the lists are fixable through cleanup and development. - tucoxn\^talk 20:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - important for navigation and detailing. All items are of a definitive interest and are likely to be covered with articles in due time. Meets the criteria because all items are in a definitive list and the subject is notable. I'll gladly work on some of these since I just became aware of the existence of the pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSC, and allow time for improved sourcing to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as perhaps I was over-nomming!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes[edit]

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

All deprodded, Anyway Non notable bus routes, Fails GNG -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages:
Southern Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes
List of Seoul bus routes
Sri Lanka bus routes
Western Province (Sri Lanka) bus routes
Sežana Bus Station
List of bus routes in Bangkok
-Davey2010 02:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Nonsensical batch nominations with varying topic types in locals in different countries, and even on different continents! --Oakshade (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep all These are articles with very different levels of notability and diffreent standards. A particularly inappropriate joint nomination. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - All fail GNG as well as NOTTRAVEL & NOTDIR, Pretty bloody sensible to me!, And lastly inappropriate my arse!..., Most of these are outdated, Perhaps prosing would be a better solution?... -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:55, 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) 00:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Seoul Times[edit]

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

Promotional article; two external links to the article topic's Web site, and only two references, one of which is a story about a different newspaper with the same name, the other of which is a reference to the article topic's Web site containing promotional text. Non-notable marked since 2008. Unimproved since 2008. Other problems that appear on page as templates. Universaladdress (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the website fails WP:WEBCRIT, WP:GNG and any number of other guidelines and policies. As a website, its independent Ghits are almost all trivial (in its technical sense) website analytics and mentions of the website in online forums and similar. In my opinion, the only thing that saves this article from "{{db-web}}" "A7 speedy deletion" is the mention of the historical English language newspaper The Seoul Times. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:30, 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. The article has seen none of the necessary improvement to rebut the "delete" !votes. As a courtesy to the page creator, I will proactively userfy instead of outright deletion. —Darkwind (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annesu de Vos[edit]

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

The speedy deletion template was removed by supposedly a different editor than the creator. There are conflict of interest issues admitted to by the editors concerned and possibly sock puppet/meat puppet activity. As well, there has been some bad faith accusations on the article talk page about myself having an agenda for nominating the article for deletion and legal threats for merely edited the article and nominating it for deletion. The main issue with the article is that there is no apparent notability per WP:GNG. Only one reference has been provided and although it is in Afrikaans, it is apparent that the link does not actually mention the subject. If it can be pointed out where she is discussed, I'd happily take back this particular point. In the end, there is no real claim to notability other than supposedly being the youngest published poet in South African history. I don't believe that by itself establishes notability as children and teens publishing poetry or any other writing is not that uncommon. The article then discusses what she is planning on doing, pursuing a career in screenwriting an completing a course in screenplay writing, which is commendable but hardly uncommon in Toronto. Editing issues (removal of templates, bad faith accusations, sock or meat puppetry, ownership claims on the article) aside, this does not appear to pass WP:GNG and does not have the reliable sources necessary to establish notability. freshacconci talk to me 03:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The French, Dutch, and Afrikaans Wikipedias have articles on the Eugene Marais Prize, which the subject apparently won in 1981. This seems to be confirmed by this page. However, whether that is enough to confer notability is an open question. According to that same page, it's not the highest prize one can receive for SA literature, and it's given out for debut works. ... discospinster _talk 03:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I find no interviews, no third-party biographies, or anything else that would support a claim of notability high enough in level to meet requirements. There are mentions and listings, but nothing substantial. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 04:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. hmssolent^lambast _{patrol records} 06:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following was just posted to the article (and was reverted as inappropriate), likely by the author, so I'm posting it here. I have no opinion on the merits of this discussion, but for completeness, I'm posting the comment. I do, however, note that the article was quickly nominated for deletion within a day of its creation. Anyway, here is the comment from the article: "Please note that this article is incomplete. There are multiple references, interviews etc. for this author whose work has been in the South African literature curriculum at grade school as well as university level for more than 30 years - these references will be entered as speedily as possible. Compiling this author's Wiki has been made more complicated by the fact that she has lived in Canada for more than 25 years and most of the references to her early work, interviews, articles on her etc. occurred in a foreign country and foreign language (Afrikaans). In the course of my research I have had to enlist the help of all who could assist me with missing information including the author herself - to the best of my knowledge doing this for a research project does not violate the Wiki rules in any way shape or form. I will remove this notice once my work is complete and I request that I be given a chance to complete it. Other editors will be assisting me so please do not block this project or delete anything until the entire body of work is accurately represented and please do not make judgements on a literary history if you have no expertise on the subject and do not even read the language! I request that I not be subjected to any more obstructive deletion notices - I will remove this notice once my work is completed. - PD"

Regards, Electric Wombat (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would, just for the record, be completely comfortable arguing that this should be kept if it were properly referenced to reliable sources. A literary award does not have to be its country's highest honour for its winners to count as notable, nor does it have to be for established writers rather than emerging ones — the only requirements are that the award is notable, and that the writer's article is properly referenced to reliable sources. However, what I see here is one reference to a Tumblr post, one to an article which mentions her name in passing but fails to be about her in any meaningful way, one which completely fails to mention her at all and one which is just to the front splash page of an organization whose name happens to be mentioned in the text. (And furthermore, for some reason if I type her name into the search bar on that organization's web page, I get taken to an article which is titled "Annesu de Vos (1964–)", but which has a biography of Johannes Petrus (Jan) Spies, rather than Ms. de Vos, as its actual content.) Which means that as things currently stand, we have a complete verifiability fail — but we still have a writer who probably would qualify for an article that was properly referenced. Delete if the article is still in its current state by close, although (a) I'm willing to switch that to a Heymann keep if the referencing improves, and (b) even if it does get deleted the creator should be encouraged to work on a better version in his own sandbox (maybe even consider userfying this page for him as a good faith gesture). Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A handful of entries at Google Books[19] shows some notability from the 1980s and early 90s. Support of use in schools seen here[20] not a lot of support but not totally unverified either. Given available evidence give it some time to develop and not rush to delete, revisit in the future. -- GreenC 04:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to HMS Thistle (N24). Sandstein 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 10 April 1940[edit]

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

non-notable war incident The Banner talk 01:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the place for every single skirmish of World War II, despite the destruction of HMS Thistle. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on HMS Thistle (N24) ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. If the submarine is notable, an account of its sinking belongs in its article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above: this should be covered in the article on the sub which was sunk. We don't need articles on every engagement of the war. Nick-D (talk) 01:32, 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) 00:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Action of 16 November 1943[edit]

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

Non-notable war-incident The Banner talk 01:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not the place for every single skirmish of World War II, despite the loss of USS Corvina. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is the only sinking of a US submarine by a Japanese submarine during WW2. That seems to me to make this a notable incident.-gadfium 06:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless there is sourcing to show this has received significant coverage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merge to Corvina and the Japanese sub. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:35, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cacoo[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking sufficient reliable sourcing. The NYTimes and Mashable refs in the article are incidental mentions, and the TechCrunch article is not sufficient on its own. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie theaters in the Netherlands[edit]

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

This is, unfortunately, nothing more than a directory. Besides the naming problem (this isn't an article about movie theaters in the Netherlands, it's nothing more than a list), the overwhelming majority of entries are simply not notable and not likely to ever be notable. As a result, unlinked entries are given their URLs, and that's directory material. A better example of how to manage this kind of material, or whatever material in here merits managing, is New York movie theaters. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Your example of what you think is better is a weird redirect from the main namespace to a category. Categories are fine as an additional tool, but an article or list is more flexible in providing information. There are even separate articles on some of the movie theaters in the Netherlands. This page Movie theaters in the Netherlands is the central place for information about movie theaters in the Netherlands, providing an overview, and context for those separate articles. - Patrick (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the external links could be replaced by references. - Patrick (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is hardly any material at all "providing information", nor are there more than a couple separate articles. The overview is that offered by the Yellow Pages also. Something that lists how many screens a place has and what their homepage is is not an encyclopedic article--it's a directory. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, deletion should not be done on the basis of the current state of an article, but on whether the article subject can developed into a better encyclopediatic article or not. I imagine that movie theaters has a long and rich history in the Netherlands, and I'm sure some anecdotes could be brought up to light and a the article could be expanded beyond just a listing. --Soman (talk) 15:41, 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. No participation through two relisting periods, this one's a no-consensus by definition. WP:NPASR applies. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bag charm[edit]

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

OR, doesn't seem notable. buff bills 7701 23:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, unreferenced OR. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being unreferenced is not itself grounds for deletion. Notability is, but a search for 'bag charm' or 'handbag charm" generates a lot of results. Silly though it may be, this is a real thing, and there is enough coverage to pass the nobility requirement.[21][22][23] TheBlueCanoe 00:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's certainly a thing, and a very popular thing at that. A close connection to Keychain here, but something distinct. I saw several hits for craft books in Google Books telling readers "how to craft bag charms"/handbag charms, a 2007 publication commenting "surely no one can have failed to notice the trend for handbag charms." for example. This Feb 2005 article from ELLEGirl very briefly describes the trend and how it started, and its longevity means it goes beyond a simple flash-in-the-pan trend. Mabalu (talk) 13:48, 9 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) 19:54, 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) 00:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additionally, the nomination does not contain a valid rationale for deletion, per WP:SK#1 regarding article merges or moves. Furthermore, articles with an extensive editing history are typically redirected to a merge target to retain attribution history, per WP:COPYWITHIN, rather than deleted in entirety. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History of companies[edit]

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

The article has been successfully merged into Corporation according to a consensus. Noodleki (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If content has been merged, the article should be redirected, not deleted. That way attribution history will be preserved. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article should not be deleted. It is a massive subject and needs its own page to grow. I have no idea what you think is going to be achieved with this "merger". Wik idea 19:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The merge already happened. At the moment, it is just a stub article.Noodleki (talk) 22:22, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems like a legitimate topic for an article, but it may need some cleanup. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am not sure about America, but in England, "company" had usually referred to commercial organisations, and corporation to public bodies charged with the government of a town (now more usually "council". This is a summary of the history of some major commercial companies. If a merger has taken place, either it should be de-merged or the resultant article should get this name. Furthermore, upon a merger, it is normal to keep the merged article as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 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) 01:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evarose[edit]

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

WP:PROD was removed. Could not establish WP:NBAND or WP:GNG; also unref article on living people. Boleyn (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 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 00:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably too soon for this band. There's a bit of light coverage by local sources, but I'm not seeing anything that would qualify as significant. Once they become a bit more notable, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:44, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immo Blaese[edit]

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

Contested PROD, tag removed by page creator with no note on talk page or mention in edit summary. Non notability: fails WP:ARTIST There is a mention of an award, but this is merely something given to a team of which he was a member. All sources are self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that article should be deleted according to the Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately the artist is successful but not in Wikipedia terms. Because I talked with the artist and he also told me that there is a misunderstanding of the D&AD award. So as the page creator I agree with the non-notability argument. Nanderovski (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 00:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the article states that he participated in exhibits at major venues, these seem to have been purely as part of much larger teams, not enough to contribute to individual notability, and that's the only thing I see in the article that stands out. Probably this can be closed quickly as a G3 speedy given the article creator's statement above. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:25, 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 redirect to King Missile. —Darkwind (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Forte[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that she is notable independent of the band. Boleyn (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 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 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to King Missile (band she was a member of). Not notable: I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage, just brief mentions saying she was playing with someone, and listings on AllMusic (without any bio or other text) and Discogs (user-created anyway). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 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 redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team. The article's history has been preserved in case any editor wishes to merge something. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apsalus Project[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team or delete. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 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, buff bills 7701 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team. Notability does not apply if merged to a notable article. VMS Mosaic (talk)
Redirect to Mobile Suit Gundam: The 08th MS Team, best to have this as a redirect as there does not appear to be anything worth merging. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 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 no consensus. Also, a merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PT Wunderman Pamungkas Indonesia[edit]

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

Advertisment/promotion, and has only one source which is a primary source (unreliable). Tal Brenev (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 21:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge to Wunderman article. Plenty of room in the parent company article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 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, buff bills 7701 00:24, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dhee Ultimate Dance Show[edit]

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

Not notable. No news article found and hardly any independent coverage. Was able to find only 1-2 word mention in The Times of India & The Hindu newspapers. Cheers AKS 10:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please can you provide those 1-2 word mentions of TOI & The Hindu? For having been aired on a national/regional recognized TV channel ETV Telugu, the show fits the WP:TVSHOW criteria. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:26, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 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, buff bills 7701 00:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per my comment above. The show is aired on national television and has had 6 seasons by now. Lack of English online sources can't be a reason for its deletion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:27, 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 no consensus due to no input other than from the nominator, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ereka Vetrini[edit]

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

Losing finalist of The Apprentice has only little notability and fails WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 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, Sandstein 20:17, 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, buff bills 7701 00:20, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kalypso Media[edit]

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

Deprodded. I think this article, self-referenced to company's website, fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Pinging User:Hahnchen who deprodded it, disagreeing with this claim. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm certainly no expert on business notability, and I don't speak German. But I think that the German Wikipedia has lots of sources establishing notability. Also, some of the games published by these people are pretty popular, which I think isn't strictly relevant, but still. Do they have to be English sources? AgnosticAphid talk 05:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for instance, http://www.mediabiz.de/games/news/hellwig-und-marcinek-gruenden-kalypso-media/214593 appears to be third party coverage of the company's founding. AgnosticAphid talk 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to get a German speaker here. As far as I can tell, they are not a developer, just a local (German) distributor. If I am wrong, the article needs to be clear on this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some problems with these sources, but there's also this and this. AgnosticAphid talk 22:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this.AgnosticAphid talk 22:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last one.AgnosticAphid talk 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but they don't look very mainstream/reliable or good for much. The company exists, yes, but I still am not seeing how it passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). Would you mind explaining this to me? Quote the applicable policy, and point me to the parts of the article that satisfy it - would you be so kind? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that I cited are third party sources that contain coverage of the article subject that is not trivial within the meaning of the notability guideline you cite. "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources....The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability....Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage, such as:sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules, the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories, inclusion in lists of similar organizations,[2] the season schedule or final score from sporting events, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel, brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business, simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued, routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season), routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops, routine restaurant reviews, quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization." I don't believe that any of the sources I cited suffer from any of those triviality problems. Would you mind explaining to me why you think that the sources I cited are not WP:RS? Quote the applicable policy, and point me to the parts of the sources that render them unreliable – would you be so kind? AgnosticAphid talk 04:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC) Further, as I noted below, there is no requirement that these sources be cited in the article for the article to survive deletion (see WP:NRV). AgnosticAphid talk 04:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the cited sources are minor gaming and/or marketing sites whose coverage is not mainstream and mostly trivial. moddb is more serious, but the entry there is still rather tiny and of less than perfect reliablity (who added it there?). If you want to argue otherwise, please explain to me in detail what makes the said websites non-trivial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 23 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 00:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if properly cited per WP:BURDEN. If no one is willing to do the cites, then change to Delete. Will meet WP:GNG if cited. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:NRV, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." AgnosticAphid talk 22:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been marked as needing citation for 11 months. I believe that is enough time to give an article to meet WP:V. Failing WP:V for nearly a year is reason enough to remove all uncited material which would leave the article with one short sentence. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to List of video game publishers. Kalypso media is an obviously major video game publisher with many notable games having articles on WP. Which is why it is puzzling that it is so hard to find independent reliable sources for the company itself. The German WP article has a number of sources, but they don't look reliable to me. Perhaps it is a privately held company; such companies tend to generate less press coverage. Unfortunately without multiple in depth independent RS, this topic fails WP:GNG thresholds. Basic information about the publisher is verifiable in independent RS, e.g. the Kalypso listing at IGN, and per WP:PRESERVE, preservation of verifiable information is preferable to deletion. Hence, a selective merge of basic info into the list at List of video game publishers and redirect seems the best course of action. --Mark viking (talk) 04:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the sources linked above and various mentions in news sources are enough to indicate notability. Readers are better served with a list of the notable products that Kalypso have developed/published rather than a redirect. - hahnch e n 16:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given the very long list of games they've made that are themselves notable and have separate articles, if sourcing the one paragraph about the company fails (which I doubt if anyone puts serious effort in it), this can be turned into a List of Kalypso Media games, which would be quite ok per normal list notability standards. There is some press coverage about Kalypso's acquisitions [24] and some interviews [25]. A Google Books search indicates that there's GNG-type coverage about the company in the form of an interview (mostly about the company, e.g. how many employees they have etc.) in the German magazine GamesMarkt [26]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trailer Park of Terror. —Darkwind (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium Comics[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 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 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trailer Park of Terror I am not entirely certain that the film is notable, but editing and publishing the comic books on which the film was based is the one thing I could find for which they might have any notability, and they are already mentioned in that article. PWilkinson (talk) 19:03, 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. Soft delete. —Darkwind (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julie E Gordon[edit]

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

An appallingly written article at a grammatically incorrect title with plenty of outlandish claims but makes no indication of notability beyond being a backing singer for Happy Mondays. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Laun chba ller 19:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 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 00:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Heavy on the hype article about a non-notable musician.JSFarman (talk) 00:33, 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 no consensus. —Darkwind (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Weisberg[edit]

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

Notability issues were raised in 2011 but not followed upon. Does not appear notable to me — neither does his former group nor the only former band co-member mentioned in that group's article. Delete all. --Nlu (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until December (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adam Sherburne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete Band doesn't seem to have charted or otherwise pass wp:BAND (only one album). And otherwise not notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have just added AfD templates to the Until December and Adam Sherburne articles as the nominator failed to do this. Consider the seven days to start here. --Michig (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note2. The bundling of articles here is nonsensical. Adam Sherburne is the leading member of the blindingly-obvioulsy notable Consolidated and has also received coverage for hos solo projects (e.g. as 'Childman', and some of the later Consolidated albums were all but Sherburne solo projects). Notability there should not be judged on his relation to Bryan Weisberg. --Michig (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adam Sherburne per my comments above. Keep Until December, which also has sufficient coverage out there to satisfy notability guidelines. Selectively merge Bryan Weisberg into the Until December article - a brief summary of one of the band's members' later activities would be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 23:21, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:54, 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, buff bills 7701 00:13, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Stadtman[edit]

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

I just don't see how this musician (or the group he formerly belonged to before it disbanded) is notable. Delete both. --Nlu (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zikzak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just added the AfD template to the Zikzak article as the nominator failed to do so. Consider the 7 days to start here. --Michig (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Zikzak and merge Todd Stadtman there. Enough coverage around to justify an article. --Michig (talk) 23:03, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 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, buff bills 7701 00:13, 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. —Darkwind (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Country (radio network)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is now up to date (network is now a part of Westwood One). Service is common national radio network for dead periods on smaller radio stations or stations which use a network to provide quality talent without the local talent price. Nate • (chatter) 02:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cannot find any reliable sources online independent of the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 08:21, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 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, buff bills 7701 00:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect' to Westwood, which is normal for superseded firms and other entities when there is not enough material for a separate article . 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:16, 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 no consensus. The only "keep" !vote was advanced by the article's creator, but nobody has commented on the additional sources linked here, and this has already been open almost 4 weeks. —Darkwind (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rocholl[edit]

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

One more bio written to promote people related to a obscure non-notable magazine. Written by a WP:SPA. damiens.rf 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article that does not show how it could go over the treshold for WP:BASIC. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:author The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

In this case:

Creation of the global visual communication concept for the smart car
Creation of a typeface family, distributed international by fontshop
Creation of a global fashion and culture magazine

Similar article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franck_Durand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 8 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) 19:57, 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, buff bills 7701 00:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Three claims for Rocholl are made above. I took the first of these: Creation of the global visual communication concept for the smart car. I then looked in the article for the string "smart". All that I found was: From 1996 to 1997 he worked as a creative director for the design agency Meiré und Meiré, in charge of implementing the corporate design of the Smart Car. This is not sourced. Where does Smart, Daimler or an independent source say this? (And if a "global visual communication concept" matters, what does it mean? The notion sounds vaguely Frankfurtian to me.) If there's no good source for a claim, the claim is worthless. -- Hoary (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. All printed essays and articles from the guys bibliography listing can be found in this pdf:

http://rocholl.cc/rocholl/frontend/media/essays_english.pdf

These two sources about his Mirage Magazine work are secondary: http://www.itsnicethat.com/articles/publication-mirage-1 "The best part of this magazine as well as the truly, truly fantastic graphic design, is that whilst it is predominantly filled with photos of half naked women, there is an air of respect present that is so rare in magazines of this ilk.". Interview about the inspirational sources for Mirage Magazine http://www.perfectlounge.ch/5-fragen-an-frank-rocholl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources Two more secondary sources have been added:

Interview in PAGE Online Magazine 25.03.2011 about the relaunch of Ramp magazine: http://www.page-online.de/emag/kreation/artikel/ramp?cid=2 Article in Schirn Kunsthalle Online Magazine about Glam! The Performance of Style exhibition http://www.schirn-magazin.de/Glam-Architektur-Atelier-Markgraph.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 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 no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PeekYou[edit]

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

Non-notable website that has not been the subject of sustained coverage in independent sources. Tons of press releases and routine directory coverage cited. Best source is a article about something else in the WSJ that mentions PeekYou in passing halfway down the article. That's not enough for Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 2 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) 19:58, 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, buff bills 7701 00:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they are mentioned in various books, including on page 261 of "Online Reputation Management for Dummies" [27] - and the "for Dummies" series is quite mainstream I think. I'm not a regular at AfD (yet) and not so familiar with WP:GNG but I think this could be a contender to be kept. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That's evidence that the subject exists, but we need more than existence. The standard is that PeekYou "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." You'd need at least one -- preferably more than one -- source where the web site is the main subject. When something else is the subject, it doesn't do much to establish notability. WP:WEBCRIT is the most specfic standard here, and again, we want to see that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently in-depth Coverage in TechCrunch [28] [29] and to a lesser extent in WSJ [30], CNET [31], and Mashable [32] [33], and some TV coverage [34] (scroll down), plus mention in something like 40 books (per GB search) makes it certainly pass WP:GNG in my view. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:53, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rabia Haseki Sultan[edit]

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

Unsourced, unable to locate reliable sources to support notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines. At this point, I can only find mirror sites. Hoping for more input and possible research to find Turkish sources. Lacking notability, this should be deleted. Cindy(talk) 15:04, 4 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 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 4 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) 20:05, 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, buff bills 7701 00:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you were the favored concubine of a seventeenth-century Ottoman sultan, you're not going to get online coverage unless you're exceptionally significant. However, you're going to get plenty of coverage in print sources from the era — after all, you're basically the closest possible thing to a queen/empress that existed for the Ottoman Empire at this time. Given the total lack of sources currently in the article, I initially wondered if she were made-up or the result of a misread source, but it turns out that such is not the case: the İstanbul city government discusses her to a small extent and confirms that she was important enough to Ahmed II that she was actually buried with him. The basic concept of the article (that such a woman existed and was a high concubine of this sultan) is definitely accurate. Finally, let me note that the point of WP:BIO is to get rid of articles on insignificant people; the favorite concubine of the Ottoman sultan near its height was definitely "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded", to quote the intro to WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarians in Argentina[edit]

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

This is an unsourced essay and potentially WP:Original research. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexicans in Argentina: "If there is an encyclopedic article that can be written about this ethnic group, someone can try to write it another time when they have some good sources to base the article on" CaroleHenson (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I've added a ref and rewritten the article bit according to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehoboclown (talk • contribs) 14:08, 4 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 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) 20:08, 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, buff bills 7701 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', deletions are not to be based the current state of an article, but on whether the article subject is notable and feasible for proper expansion. This is clearly a valid article subject. --Soman (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Fenwick Smith[edit]

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

Article that does not make a claim of notability strong enough to get past WP:NMUSIC, and which relies almost entirely on unreliable and/or primary sources. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 4 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) 16:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 4 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) 20:08, 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, buff bills 7701 00:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. No charting, major awards, significant releases, rotation. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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