Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 January	31 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 WTF. This article never existed. There is no entry in the deletion log for it. It is unclear why this nomination even exists.

This AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Robot Wars Grand Finalists[edit]

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

Info features in a more productive way on the main Robot Wars article, results section. Chausssettte (talk) 21:43, 30 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. 28bytes (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Kaffka[edit]

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

An article that is fundamentally a promotional public relations profile for an actor whose only credited parts to date have been extra or stunt double roles, which cites no reliable sources to demonstrate that he actually gets past our notability rules for actors as spelled out at WP:NACTOR — as written, the article serves only to demonstrate that he exists. The mere fact that a person has an IMDb page is not by itself a qualification that entitles a person to a Wikipedia article, because everybody who's ever worked on any film or television series at all, right down to "third assistant best boy", gets an IMDb page; rather, an article on Wikipedia has to be cited to substantive third-party media sources about him, such as books, magazine or newspaper coverage, and there's little to no evidence of such coverage even existing at the present time. To all available evidence, furthermore, it appears to have been written by his own management/PR team, as parts of it are lifted verbatim from his own website, thus violating WP:COPYVIO — and while it was previously speedied, undeletion was requested by User:Paraisoevents, which according to Google exactly matches the name of an event management company run by, guess who, Erick Kaffka and his wife, thus violating WP:COI as well. Delete; as always, if a properly sourced article about him can be written I'd be happy to withdraw this, but this version is not properly sourced and does not make a legitimate claim of notability. Bearcat (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An inspiring story but not one that is encyclopedic. The only source that I could locate was a blog post on the Vancouver Observer that looked like it was either a community-sourced entry or a poorly-written press release. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. Paviliolive (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence that any inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 12:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Malaysia relations[edit]

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

the existence of relations/recognition is not the same as notable relations. there are no resident embassies, no agreements between the countries, and only 1 visit by a minister in 20 years in relations. the article claims major trade partners when in fact the reference says Malaysia represents 0.40% of Estonia's imports. the fact that Estonian DJ played at a malaysian music festival and mentioned one line in an article is scraping the barrel for relations. the other sources provided confirm diplomatic recognition and existence of a honorary consul. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, trade between the two countries is about 13 million Euros, malaysia's total trade is RM1.27 trillion, or 280 billion euro. so Estonia represents a miniscule 0.005% of Malaysia's total trade. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is still a significant trade relations like this article. Plus, if there is no embassies then why still keep some article like the Israel–Malaysia relations when there is no official diplomatic relations and no embassy and even any consulate. — "ʀᴜ" ɴᴏᴛ ʀᴜssɪᴀɴ^ᴡʜᴜᴛ? 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

13 million euros significant trade? As stated above this is 0.005% of Malaysia's total trade. If Estonia stopped trading with Malaysia, I don't think either country would notice. Israel has a special relationship with all Muslim countries, given that they don't have formal diplomatic relations that's why they don't have embassies. On the other hand Estonia and Malaysia have formal recognition yet no embassies, and can't even negotiate one agreement in 20 years and only one visit by a minister from either country in 20 years. That's how minor the relationship is. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and if you don't like Israel–Malaysia relations please nominate it for deletion but quoting it here is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I note that the Malaysian PM wrote three times to the Israeli PM. I doubt the Malaysian PM has ever written to the Estonian PM once in 20 years of relations. LibStar (talk) 12:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, you know. There's an ongoing relationships between the Islamic community in Malaysia and the Islamic communities of Palestine and Malaysia's diplomatic relations with countries in the Middle East have regularly focused on conflicts involving Israel. There are also suggestions (though in diplomacy-focused blogs, not RS) that Israel intends to open a regional embassy in KL. I don't think Israel–Malaysia relations is a good comparison here. Stalwart111 04:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. I'd be surprised if most Malaysian diplomats can find Estonia on a map and $13 million in trade is probably just the stuff a handful of Estonians bought from Malaysian manufacturers on eBay. This is just another in a seemingly endless list of X-Y-relations articles and citing other such articles that haven't yet been brought to justice is a terrible argument for keeping this one. GNG, people. GNG. Stalwart111 04:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- these X-Y relations articles are generally terrible, and this is no exception. The sources are not very good, amounting to WP:RUNOFTHEMILL coverage and it's actually a little bit misleading to present this stuff as actual "relations" between these two nations. Reyk _YO! 11:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G12: copyvio. Duplication Detector confirms it (and shows where a few words were changed, such as from plural to non, to try to hide the cut and pasting). No prejudice against a legitimate recreation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Military Museum of North Florida[edit]

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

does not meet the notability guidelines for organizations, reads like a brochure for the museum, looks like a cut and paste from http://www.militarymuseumofnorthflorida.com/mission.htm.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not the biggest-time operation, but I think it's a legitimately notable museum based on substantial coverage over a period of years, and it deserves cleanup rather than deletion. I've added some sources to the article, and reduced the promotional tone of some of the text. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the old version because of copyright issues, we can't have that on the history period. Notable museum however so if Arxiloxos can do a complete rewrite that removes all traces of the copyvio, I'll support keeping. Secret ^account 17:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the nominator mentioned cut-and-paste, I didn't understand that to be the main thrust of the nomination, and the article was neither tagged as a copyright violation nor marked for speedy deletion. If you find that it warrants deletion on that ground, please do so. I've struck my !vote.--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kenneth Anderson (writer). slakr^\ talk / 12:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jungles Long Ago[edit]

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

Non-notable book, nothing but a resume of contents. TheLongTone (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The author is a very notable writer in India, and internationally in the fields of conservation and hunting. In this regard, as he only wrote eight books (this being the final one) I would deem it a notable book. The page provides general publication history, detailed summary of each short story, relevant quotes, book jacket image and link to an online version of the text. None such information was previously listed on the Author's specific page. You talking2me (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case it would be better to add the revevant information aboutall this author's books to his biog.TheLongTone (talk) 10:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kenneth Anderson (writer). The author is undeniably notable, but notability must still be established for each of his individual works as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED automatically by him having wrote it. I can find where this book is mentioned in passing in relation to the author, but I can't find any in-depth scrutiny of this book in specific. The closest I found was this work, but we'd need more than just one source to show notability. If someone can find them then I'm willing to be persuaded, but by large the sources out there as a whole talk about Anderson himself and his writing career as a whole rather than this book specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your well argued feedback. On that basis i'll concede that perhaps an individual page is not needed for the book (or his preceding books). I will take the suggestion of TheLongTone and incorporate the individual book information on the author's page, perhaps with a separate heading for each of his books to keep it tidy. I'll try and neaten up the rest of the author's page as well as it is a bit messy. Thanks You talking2me (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem- you might still want to continue digging for sources for him, as it's entirely possible that there is a plethora of sources for him that aren't on the Internet. I know that in the past we've had that happen- especially with sources located in places such as India, where the print sources were never placed on the Internet but would be considered a RS. As such it'd probably be a good idea to leave the article's history intact in case you or someone else does find this sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom Drug Discovery Consortium[edit]

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

declined prod as "probably notable". found nothing in BBC, nothing in UK education domain .ac.uk, and a small number of passing references in gbooks. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No refs in the article, nothing on google. Appears to be a committee not a consortium, so just people chatting. Szzuk (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main Stage Wrestling[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for sports groups/corporations. ColonelHenry (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As not meeting WP:GNG]. Paviliolive (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GNG. Snappy (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invisible, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet the notability guidelines as it is applied to video games and other media, and per WP:FUTURE - 5.Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements ColonelHenry (talk) 22:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What notability guideline for video games are you referring to? I could not find one. Regarding WP:FUTURE I believe the article should be kept since it is not a mere product announcement, but an already playable product that is receiving attention from reliable sources. The article consists solely of verifiable encyclopedic information, and much more about the game could be added to the article, particularly by looking under its previous name since the game recently changed its name. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC) edit It meets the GNG as it is covered by many independent reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:53, 30 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) Odie5533 (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First to comment on the current sources in the article, it is the same bit of news - the renaming, so really there is fluff. That said, 1) there are other sources from the original launch of the alpha access [1], [2] (among some); 2) this is a game by a noted developer, Klei Entertainment with several highly recieved titles, and it is unlikely this one will not get more attention in the future as it continues in alpha access. Personally, I wouldn't have created the article, and I would support a merge to Klei Entertainment (as I would have recreated a redirect on its announcement if I wanted to), but there's no reason at all to delete an article that is likely going to be expanded in the future. --MASEM (t) 00:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Ordinarily, WP:TOOSOON/WP:WAF as there cannot be proper reception without a finished product and thus no critical commentary other than speculation by the press from videos and pre-release versions. That said, the press has directly covered it more than upcoming games usually get covered up to WP:GNG standards (besides perhaps in-depth-ness as per previous reason) and of course a game by Klei will get WP:VG/RS press coverage on release regardless. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that the only critical commentary is "speculation by the press from trailers and gameplay videos", which would be true for most games, but Invisible, Inc. hosted a preview of the game at PAX Prime 2013, and they are making alphas and betas of the game available through Steam Early Access. That means that anyone can buy the game right now and play it, and that any press that wants to can base their commentary on the game, not just videos. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right, I didn't see it on Steam Early Access and assumed it's not yet available. But Klei is selling pre-orders on their own site. I have rephrased my argument. I also looked at references again and none of them use the early access version for an in-depth review, most commentary is along the lines of "It’s exceedingly barebones for now, but the skeleton of something great is beginning to take shape." That users can access it does not mean press has "reviewed" it, as much as "review" can apply to an unfinished game in alpha. I would not call this passing WP:GNG with "significant coverage", but then I am confident it will be released, properly reviewed and notable, hence I'm not at all arguing for deletion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Game journalists are hesistent to review games at the alpha stage for various good reasons, so we're not going to have a proper review until after the game is truly released. However, notability does not require reviews, just significant coverage, which includes pre-release details and commentary on the game as from PAX, etc. The fact this type of coverage exists is a good sign that the press will cover the game with proper reviews on release. --MASEM (t) 02:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hence I didn't say "delete". I just don't consider sources not more than 5 paragraphs each "significant coverage", a criteria which has to apply to each source. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of reliable source coverage available. There's much more available here than just an announcement, and WP:CRYSTAL violations are more about things that fail WP:HAMMER - again, much more than that is known, so this article doesn't apply. Sergecross73 msg me 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it clearly meets notability requirements for video games -- although the article should probably note the games name change, as noted in some of the sources. Paviliolive (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. v/r - T P 08:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Continuum[edit]

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

The article is essentially empty. When I look for sources using "Apache Continuum" I cannot find any reliable sources. It does not appear to meet even WP:GNG. I suspect a merge to the associated Maven article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (1) An article being "essentially empty" just means it's a stub. From stubs great articles can grow. (2) I was able to find reliable pretty quickly (e.g. [3], [4], [5]). (3) The sources I found are sufficient for WP:GNG at least. (4) No opinion on a merge proposal but I suggest it be done in the usual way as I see no reason to delete this article as it stands. --Tóraí (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you read GNG? Those "sources" do not qualify as

significant coverage
in reliable sources
that are independent of the subject.

They really do not lend any credibility to the existence of this as a stand-alone article. The fact that it's been a stub for more than two years does not help your case. And of course, just as it says in the guideline related to stubs, "If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article." Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Apache Software Foundation projects - software article lacking independent references to establish notability, and a search did not reveal significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Simple article describing an integration server. Ideal for those who want to find out what it is, at a glance, you could say encyclopedic. scope_creep talk 15:12 02 January 2014 (UTC)
Keep. It is like the other projects. Dependable references need to be added.Whitescorp34 (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What other projects are you referring to? My search found no independent, significant coverage reliable sources, and there's no way to add them if they don't exist.Dialectric (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are in-depth articles on continuum at Packt and Java.net. There is an interview with one of the developers at [6], but I don't think this qualifies as a reliable source. Continuum is discussed extensively throughout the book Apache Maven 2 Effective Implementation. The Maven book and the Java.net article are enough to establish WP:GNG notability. The Packt article is also an RS and contributes, but is not entirely independent of the Maven book. The IBM Developerworks article mentioned by Tóraí also has some information on continuum and places it in the context of other CI systems. The article needs sources added, but this and other problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems. A notable topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of them meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Honolulu Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL; none of the men on this list possess articles on themselves either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ This is not a proper list, which is supposed to be a list of links to articles. As noted above, none of these individuals have articles. I have inserted a link to the police department's "Roll of Honor" into the article Honolulu Police Department; IMO that is the most we can do. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie, that is total nonsense. See criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Selection criteria. Another example is WP:NASTRO's directions regarding minor planets. What you propose is preposterous and would probably kill the encyclopedia if it became a guideline. James500 (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LISTPEOPLE says that people included in a list should either satisfy the notability guidelines, or, alternatively, be famous for a specific event. It does not require them to have articles. James500 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "Being killed in the line of duty" counts as a notable event under Wikipedia guidelines. It gets local press but that's usually it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing my "delete" vote based on the policies cited below. --MelanieN (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list appears to be a daughter list of List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability as long as the parent list is notable. The manual of style envisages lists that contain no individually notable entries. James500 (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who says that any of these "list of [nationality/city] police officers killed in the line of duty" articles should really be on Wikipedia?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CSC says list members don't need to be notable which by definition means they do not need to be links to articles. Nothing in WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about WP:CSC. Thanks for bringing that into the discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 09:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and noteworthy subject matter. Educational and encyclopedic. Very well sourced throughout. — Cirt (talk) 04:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of cops in Honolulu who died. How is it educational?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philadelphia Police Department officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

WP:NOTMEMORIAL; none of the men on this list possess articles on themselves either. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a daughter list of List of American police officers killed in the line of duty. LISTN says that we can spin off daughter lists without regard to notability as long as the parent list is notable. The manual of style envisages lists that contain no individually notable entries. James500 (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deserves expansion with additional references. Certainly a noteworthy topic and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CSC says list members don't need to be notable. Nothing in WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 09:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vevo Certified music videos[edit]

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

Poorly sourced fancruft; this is merely a "List of music videos with 100 million views on YouTube and the like". The fact that this is given out by a notable website does not matter in my opinion, it is a non-notable metric. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the article following the outcome of a CFD for Category:Vevo Certified songs. There is a mention of the certification within the Vevo article. I agree that the list is merely WP:Fancruft with no real legitimate sourcing of artists/videos that receive this certification. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOT#ADVERTISING and its stepchild, WP:SINGLEVENDOR. It's a sales measure from a single entity measuring only that entity's distribution, neglecting the broader market. There are numerous streaming and download charts that do not have the same inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 22:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non important list. List shows no significant aid in navigation to the related articles per WP:L. ///EuroCarGT 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an industry metric, and certainly not a neutral source of information and easily bent towards influence without knowing how they're exactly measured. Nate • (chatter) 23:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable award, and it does seem a bit like an advertisement. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:40, 31 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. 28bytes (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic[edit]

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

The intent (and value) of this article is grossly unclear. The bulk of the article seems to refer to a degree program of only one education institution (University of Cape Coast), but it is unclear if that is the only institution which offers this degree. If not, the information about the institution should be removed, leaving almost no content; if so, the information should be included in the existing article on the institution, not in a standalone (stub) article concerning the degree. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the descriptive text in the lede ("Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery") is different than the page title ("Bachelor of Surgery and Bachelor of Chiropractic"), making it even less clear what this article is about. Dwpaul ^Talk 22:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, the one reference for the page (to the above mentioned institution's web site), ostensibly to describe that school's program, is now a dead link. [Later] The correct link appears to be here, by name the program in the lede (not the one in the title).Dwpaul ^Talk 22:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete. I was just about to PROD this when you nominated. Tried to verify or find sources and found nothing. If it's about the degree mentioned in the title I don't think it exists anymore (if it ever did), if it's about the degree mentioned in the lede which Dwpaul found a source for it's already covered in University of Cape Coast which is noted as offering MBChB degrees. acb314 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, alas, and to add to the confusion, I believe ChB is intended to refer to the Bachelor of Chiropractic component~~, which is not in evidence at all on the school's Web site~~. So the page about the school seemingly requires some editing also (not only to remove the wikilink to this page if it is deleted). (The school page and this page were created by the same editor on the same day.) [Later] The Web site link above refers to the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery degree using the short form (MB, Ch B), so it seems as if the B of Surgery is actually a degree in chiro?? What a mess. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's impossible to even tell what the name of this degree is - but fortunately it doesn't matter. It's not deserving of a freestanding article whatever it is. Props to the nominator for finding and nominating this mess. --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There have been a few of these idiosyncratic degree programs brought to AfD, and none of them have made any credible claim to notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty[edit]

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

This seems entirely outside the project's scope. There do not seem to be that many articles on this project concerning subjects similar to this and it seems that very little of the people in this list have articles of their own. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about this list, for example? And this one? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, many of these pages do not seem like they're proper for Wikipedia, considering WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Unless the officer was notable, or the events regarding the death notable, then it doesn't seem like the list has its use on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An article well sourced with a list of notable facts.User:Lucifero4
I don't see a list of every police officer in Singapore who died on duty is "a list of notable facts". It's a list of names of people who don't have their own articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually the death of a policeman received large coverage in the news.User:Lucifero4
Keep. Police killings are extremely likely to be notable events, whether or not the individual victims are otherwise notable. Lists like this one are encyclopedic and appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:N and WP:V. After reading WP:NOTMEMORIAL, I do not see how it is even relevant here. Per WP:CSC, the individual members of a list do not have to be notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN. That none of the entries on the list are independently notable is explicitly *not* a criterion for list deletion. It's clear that "Police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject, and just as clear that "Police officers from city X killed in the line of duty" is notable. The criterion is that the entries on the list must be discussed by RS as a group. That's clearly the case here. There are a bunch of these articles, and every last one of them satisfies LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject thereby allowing people to produce lists covering every single law enforcement agency around the world and their brethren who died on duty.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it is according to LISTN, which notes that One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.. That this is the case for "police officers killed in the line of duty" is not hard to see:
Samuel Walker Professor of Criminal Justice University of Nebraska at Omaha (11 April 1993). Taming the System : The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990: The Control of Discretion in Criminal Justice, 1950-1990. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 32–. ISBN 978-0-19-536015-8.

Robert C. Wadman (2009). Police Theory in America: Old Traditions and New Opportunities. Charles C Thomas Publisher. pp. 104–. ISBN 978-0-398-08568-1.

James F. Pastor (12 December 2010). Terrorism and Public Safety Policing: Implications for the Obama Presidency. CRC Press. pp. 327–. ISBN 978-1-4398-1581-6.

There are many more such sources, and in JSTOR too, which I'm not bothering to link to. It seems to me to be a LISTN slam-dunk.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LISTN also says the event should be notable. Every single Singaporean cop's death on the job does not seem notable. It does get covered by the local press, as do many events, but these are people only notable for one thing it seems, and that is their death.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it says exactly the opposite: Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. The individual items do not in fact need to be notable. This is a crucial element of LISTN.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But how is the group or set notable?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, as stated above and demonstrated by three of the multitude of sources available.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But none of those are about Singapore. And none of them are about being killed in the line of duty. And the fact that every death gets reported by the press does not count.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see, you didn't ask me about Singapore at first. You said I do not see how "police officers killed in the line of duty" is a notable subject and I produced sources to show that it was. Now if we're just talking about ones in Singapore, we are talking about "Lists of X of Y", where X="police officers killed in the line of duty" and Y="Singapore." WP:LISTN says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. However, I will say that "policemen killed in the line of duty in Los Angeles," (which you did not nominate for deletion) satisfies LISTN all by itself. Singapore, being as notable a place as Los Angeles, seems to me to have as good a claim to satifying LISTN. And the fact that none of the sources are about police being killed in the line of duty is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the sources treat "police killed in the line of duty" as a group or set, and they're RS, so that makes the grouping notable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a real stretch. And these few AFDs are me testing the waters because I really do not see how these lists meet the notability requirements, and simply saying "oh it's a list of two things" means that there's no rule so it's good to go is just complete bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a stretch at all, but good luck to you. I wish you'd bundled them, though. Perhaps you'll put a note at the top of each notifying the closer of the others, since clearly they all stand or fall together.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies LISTN. James500 (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I dont particularly "agree" with the current set-up — Preceding unsigned comment added by SweetPotatoSalad (talk • contribs) 10:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why? VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mosaic, dont listen to that trash. Its obvious that SweetPotatoSalad is another aforementioned sockpuppet of Ryulong (talk · contribs · logs). A thread was started on WP:AN/I for all his foolishness so he will be banned soon. I'ma Scoop! (talk)

I'ma Scoop! - Even a total and complete asshole can have an opinion which should be taken into account. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Wiki-star has realized I'm onto him and now he's socking and claiming I'm him.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as WP:CSD#G11 Promotional DES ^(talk) 01:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libero.it[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:NOTADVERTISING JMHamo (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No RS outside of the website itself. Admiral Caius (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertising of what appears to be non-notable. Probable promotion by someone with COI ES &L 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see notability, the article is promotional itself with marketing figures. ///EuroCarGT 22:56, 30 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. Consensus has not changed in this case. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Fate[edit]

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

Fails On WP:BAND. Article does not evidently demonstrate that this group is notable. Most of the links used in previous deletion discussions in support of keep votes are either dead or irrelevant to the subject and few includes interviews and trivial coverages. They have won the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005, not sure whether this award is notable. Hitro talk 19:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes both WP:BAND and WP:GNG, [7],[8], [9]. Citycell Channel-i Music Awards is arguably the biggest music award event in Bangladesh and receives extensive media coverage. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This band passes on WP:BAND only if the "Best Underground Band" award at the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards in 2005 is notable. Notability of this award should be established in this discussion. Sources confirming that they won this award is nugatory unless this award is notable. If they pass on any other criteria of WP:BAND then please point the criteria number in little elaborative manner. Hitro talk 21:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Criteria 1, 5, 7, 9, 12. For the award, see the link posted below. --Zayeem ^(talk) 10:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- As according to The Daily Star, the Citycell Channel-i Music Awards are "the biggest award ceremony of Bangladeshi music".[10]. And furthermore, Cryptic Fate is one of the most popular bands of Bangladesh. Their Facebook page alone has over 58,000 fans.--Bazaan (talk) 05:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Car Parks Limited[edit]

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

Car Park company in a single city. As expected, local refs only. As also expected, approved at AfC DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per satisfying Wikipedia:GNG. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Several of the sources specifically contradict the "in a single city" claim that is a key point of this deletion nomination. (They use phrases like "across the country" and "nationwide".) If the supposed "single city" concerned is Manchester, it is worth noting that Manchester is not in Essex nor in East Anglia, thus none of the sources can be considered "local". Arthur goes shopping (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see issues here that need community review, and the vague wave to "local refs" and "single city" has been refuted. Unscintillating (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Utterly pointless nomination!, Article clearly passes GNG!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Fialho[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - he has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not establish the notability of this subject. Folgertat (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Crew of the RMS Titanic. slakr^\ talk / 12:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Sheath[edit]

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

WP:ONEEVENT. PROD removed with the rationale that there are a large number of articles on other Titanic survivors. This is a poor argument: part WP:OTHERSTUFF, and partly because many of the people on the ship would merit biographies even had they not been on board. There is, incidentally, also an article on the individual lifeboat on whicj Sheath escaped. TheLongTone (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete as per nom fails WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:ONEEVENT.
Comment. Will removing this content from Wikipedia improve our coverage and further our understanding of the Titanic? Hard to see how. Maybe a merger discussion is called for, but I don't yet see a compelling argument for deletion. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does including this article "improve our coverage and further our understanding of the Titanic??

Very hard to see how, I think the issues are dealt with already. TheLongTone (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crew of the RMS Titanic ~~per~~ in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, if WP:BLP1E doesn't allow for a standalone article about this subject. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I deprodded the article, not because I think he's especially notable (he certainly isn't), but because there are indeed a large number of articles on crew and passengers of the Titanic who aren't really especially notable and I felt it needed a wider discussion rather than being nominated for uncontroversial deletion via prodding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's no additional info here that is not already included on several other articles, except for his non-notable biographical info (nothing to merge). ~Eric:71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merging any relevant content, to Crew of the RMS Titanic. WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, however this is a reasonable redirect/search term and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I struck part of my !vote above, and added "in the spirit of" after the struck portion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that actually is something I can get behind! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect (probably mostly the latter) -- I suspect that the subject was not responsible for the small number of passengers in the boat; rather it was the officer who directed him to crew it. The tone of the article feels a bit of an attack on a seaman who was only following instructions. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started this AfD, & feel that there is not enough for a merge & that a rediect would be the best option.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inferno Legend[edit]

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

Completing a malformed AfD nomination by another user. The rationale for deletion was stated by User:71.43.28.22 as "The page is blatant advertising. All text is copied directly from the promotional website with no extra information offered." (Diff page). I presently have no opinion about the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I deleted much of the page as a copyvio. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news search turns up 3 results that could justify a stub. Paviliolive (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What results did you find? I only had one item come up in news search, one of the joystiq.com posts.Dialectric (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joystiq has 3 articles on it and PCGamesN has one. That's all I could find. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software of unclear notability, lacking RS references. A search revealed only 1 piece of significant coverage, this mmorpg.com review which on its own is not sufficient to establish notability. There are brief items on joystiq.com covering various beta releases and giveaways, but nothing I see as significant coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mellisai[edit]

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

Although sources exist they are questionable as to their neutrality and I am not seeing notability here per WP:MOVIE. Also this seems a clear case of WP:TOOSOON since the film is not expected to be released before the end of 2014. Article was previously tagged for ref improve and notability and PROD. Subsequently both PROD and all maintenance tags were removed without explanation or any improvement in the article by its creator. I also note the article's creator has a track record of controversial edits and article creations. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the article's creator has a track record of controversial edits and article creations" - how exactly? Please refrain from jumping to such unaccountable accusations. The film is in production, has been reported in the media widely and will release shortly. Editor 2050 (talk) 23:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is about a future film that is in active production and is being covered by multiple third parties. This sufficiently passes WP:NFF and WP:GNG. BOVINEBOY2008 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:25, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bovineboy2008. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pinch Off[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTHOWTO; the latter is surmountable, but the former isn't. "Pinch Off" isn't mentioned at either of the two references present, so perhaps this is just a colloquialism for a type of bread. "pinch off" bread -wikipedia seems to support this. "Pinch bread" is another name for monkey bread, but since it doesn't seem that that's ever called "Pinch Off," there wouldn't seem to be a benefit to redirecting either. --BDD (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I almost didn't have time to vote on this AfD, I've been so busy working on my article Spoon Fling. It's all about a special kind of crepe. It's just like other crepes, but you start by putting a pat of butter on a spoon, then flinging it into the pan. It's a really fun thing to think about when you're on death row or an intercontinental flight. Delete. Ringbang (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --BDD (talk) 04:12, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This might even qualify for CSD. Neither of the sources mention "pinch off," a Google search returns all sorts of things but no visible "pinch off" bread in the first pages. It's a how-to, and I strongly suspect WP:MADEUP. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Faye[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLP that fails GNG or any SNGs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Significant reliable source coverage not found in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mere nominations no longer enable stubs like this to pass PORNBIO. Finnegas (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/neutral. Sources are provided and she is somewhat notable, having been in over 20 adult films, though at the same time I tend to agree with the above reasoning. Tinton5 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources do you think pass RS? None of them cut the mustard in my book. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Save the date[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG as most google hits are websites to order the cards. ~~Secondly, the article seems to have a copyright-problem (Duplication detector)~~ The Banner talk 21:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With good secondary sources it would pass the GNG, but I didn't find any. Even though its usage in American English is evident, I don't think it qualifies as per WP:NEO and WP:WORDISSUBJECT. If this idiom lasts, I expect that a more appropriate article title would be save-the-date notice rather than an imperative sentence. —Ringbang (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It appears that the blog copied from Wikipedia; that text was in the article earlier than the date of the blog post. (That fact has no bearing on notability, only on the apparent copyright issue.) Cnilep (talk) 09:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a WP:DICTDEF and this is hardly an idiomatic expression that might need explaining so it's not even suitable for the Wiktionary. If the topic is actually trying to be "save the date" card, that probably fails WP:GNG. The most I could find about it is stuff at the level of definition with some advice how to make these which wouldn't be suitable per WP:NOTHOWTO, e.g. [11][12]. A paragraph at wedding invitation should suffice for the concept of this "pre-invitation". Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:RHaworth per WP:NOTHOWTO. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selecting the Ideal painting contractors in Caputa[edit]

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

This article reads like an instruction manual for how to select a painting contractor. WP:NOTGUIDE. —Josh3580_talk/hist 16:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vidal[edit]

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

~~Unsourced BLP and the article fails WP:GNG~~ Ok Obvious screw up on my part Meant to nominate this article . Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep - Competed in two separate Winter Olympics, so easily meets WP:ATHLETE, and the EL in the article can easily be turned into a reference, just like I have done. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:12, 30 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheltenham Town Football Club 50 Greats[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Also the content of the article is probably a copyvio of a published list. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Half the players on there aren't notable, and the only real coverage of the book at all comes from Gloucestershire-based newspapers. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Luke, no indication of significant widespread coverage on this book. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – absence of independent significant coverage on the topic, title also seems to have a NPOV issue ;) C 679 13:10, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pea Hix[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Article created in 2006 and barely edited since. Subject undoubtedly exists, but there is no indication of notability in the article and a Google search has produced no independent sources on the subject (other than on San Diego local source about photos, not music). Other sites are clones of Wikipedia or publicity/self-promotion. Emeraude (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page as intimately tied to Pea Hix:[reply]

Emeraude (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick google search gave me no sources to prove notability under WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The band that this person in is unremarkable - only links to AllMusic and their official website. Person is not notable. Touch Of Light (Talk / Contributions) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:38, 30 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. 28bytes (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

College Assignment Help[edit]

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

PROD removed with no explanation. Essay. (and remarkably badly written: I'm not sure what the article is actually about) TheLongTone (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think the first two words neatly sum it up: this is someone's college assignment. The use of references is dubious - none seem to support or even mention what precedes them. Being badly written is not, in itself, a reason to delete - articles can be improved - but that hardly applies here. Emeraude (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't using the quality of writing as an argumenet for deletion: the point is that the quality of writing makes it difficult to tell what the article is about, so precluding improvement.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obvious essay delete and should have been speedied as such. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as G11. The external links at the bottom all eventually lead (through in-line links) to writengine.com, a source for purchased essays. The text of the article is of the same tone as the the external links. This is sneaky spam. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 15:19, 30 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 SPOD (band). JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taste the Radness[edit]

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

Non-notable self-published album by barely notable band. Can be merged to the band's article (SPOD (band)) Emeraude (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to SPOD. I don't know if more RS exist and if they do, I'm willing to change my vote. But other than that, I only found one source that goes over a re-release of the album. In any case, unless those sources come about I think that we should redirect to the main article but leave the history in case more sources become available. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Sommer[edit]

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

Promotional, written like an advert, appears to be an autobiography that is monitored by an IP, notability not apparent. Jim1138 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability seems to be based on who he represents, not who he is. Emeraude (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited. Being employed by notable people does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'"Keep'" notability apparent based on citations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamtom123 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasons above. Also: Being nominated as "Agent of the year" by a trade pub is of interest only to the trade and (perhaps) potential clients; it doesn't translate to encyclopedic notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural Close. Wrong venue. This is a redirect and should be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 15:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Radio Controversy[edit]

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

Non-existent subject Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:28, 30 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 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and take it to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Because it's a redirect. (The reason for deletion is false: there are legitimate uses of this term that refer to the discovery of radio[13][14] and have nothing to do with the album by the band Tesla, though people may still want to redirect it to the album The Great Radio Controversy. But deleting rather than redirecting will serve no purpose.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 30 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 Cosplay. Consensus is that this shouldn't be a separate article. If there is anything mergeworthy, it can be merged from the history. Sandstein 08:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplay photography[edit]

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

Wholly unreferenced despite being around for some years. Single in-line ref is to a blog as is the only external link. No notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge to cosplay Not much independent info here; what little there is belongs in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete. (I don't see any mergeworthy content.) I'd guess that there is something to it; cosplay photography (of which I cheerfully admit ignorance) is not likely to be to cosplay what -- random example -- bridge photography is to bridges; after all, bridges do their (useful) thing even without conscious attention, whereas cosplay seems to crave it. Why my regret? Well, consider this nugget (from an article that can't decide if its subject is a "form" or a "style" of photography): The photos can be black and white, color, any size or shape with any lens, so long as a coslayer [sic] is the main subject. -- Hoary (talk) 01:51, 31 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmine Lafitte[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO & WP:GNG. the section 'Awards and Nominations' does not specify which is which. Regardless, there is no sourcing which I can locate that she is notable in terms of having won awards or gaining "significant coverage in reliable sources" Finnegas (talk) 10:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I accept that the article now passes PORNBIO and has numerous refernces to reliable independent sources which satisfy WP:GNG . Finnegas (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom fails WP:PORNBIO And WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. No valid rationale for deletion. The subject passes WP:PORNBIO#1 per the sourced Venus Award win (as minimum). She passes WP:PORNBIO#4 as she has an established mainstream career (a main role in Danielle Arbid's A Lost Man, a supporting role in Olivier Marchal's MR 73, the TF1 show La Méthode Cauet, guest star in an episode of Métal Hurlant Chronicles, spokesmodel of FHM among other things). She also easily passes WP:GNG per multiple French-language sources (see [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] among others). Note that the nominator has been repeatedly warned about his "targeting foreign porn actors for deletion without considering foreign sources" (eg see [22], [23], among other discussions). Cavarrone 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Other editors have fixed most of the nominator's concerns. Subject passes PORNBIO with a Venus Award win. Cavarrone's points above are also valid. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izenda[edit]

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

An article about a software company that obliquely hides what it actually does. The article has sources, but they seem to be all in the advertising / press release vein. I did find a discussion forum link here which reveals that the company's owner was struggling to understand the terms unique selling point and SQL injection in 2005, which suggest the rest of the article is probably puffed up a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable company lacking news/sources of substance. Fails WP:Notability. Microsoft source no longer features alleged video, if it ever existed on the site at all. (a search on the Microsoft site displays no results for 'izenda'). BusinessWeek source proves that company exists but again, notability is not established. Bacefook (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Not notable. The obfuscation of the company's business does not help. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Battle Tendency. (and/or redirect if insufficient content exists) slakr^\ talk / 04:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Joestar[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Battle Tendency through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per GNG BlueSalix (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Tendency. It's possible there are enough sources for notability out there (being a major protagonist in a sub series of a fairly notable work), but the chance are they won't be forthcoming before the end of the AfD period. However we have a target page for a summary of the character to be merged to. Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Battle Tendency per Dandy. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real-world coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing article like this. --DAJF (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Battle Tendency - No notability outside of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What referenced content is there to merge that will help better the merge target? I would have no objection to a Redirect - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 12:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry United F.C.[edit]

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

New football club playing at the very lowly 12th level of English football, at which many teams simply play on open pitches in public parks. Accepted cutoff for presumed noability at WP:FOOTY has for many years been level 10, i.e. the level at which teams are eligible to enter the FA Cup. PROD was disputed by Nfitz (talk · contribs) with the rationale "I thought Level 12 was generally the dividing line. None the less, seems to have (barely) attracted enough media coverage to meet WP:GNG". I disagree, so I have brought it here....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant delete. There is some coverage (WSC, Coventry Observer), but I don't think this is sufficient to satisfy WP:N. Perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON (i.e. people hoping it to be another FC United / AFC Wimbledon, but it hasn't done enough yet). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN as has not competed in a national competition. Does seem potentially like a case of TOOSOON and would be happy to change my vote if additional coverage along the lines of FC United / AFC Wimbledon can be found. Fenix down (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Controversy and founding could be covered in Coventry City F.C. though a full merge would be excessive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Coventry City F.C. until such time as it becomes independently notable. Giant Snowman 13:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:GNG, or to be notable otherwise. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – insufficient coverage to be deemed notable at this time. C 679 13:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not worthy of notice at this stage and would likely set a precedent for an avalanche of similar non notable teams worldwide. Such as the team I'm currently playing on, a team name I will not mention or propose for inclusion :) CrookedwithaK (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 12:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lilah Richcreek[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article - one acceptable source, one unacceptable blog and an IMDb page. A Google search turns up little to put Ms. Richcreek on the right side of WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One sentence and it fails WP:GNG this one is a no brainer.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1, 2, 3, 4, Lilah's article here no more BlueSalix (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete! One source from The Hollywood Reporter mentions her name clearly, and the refined sentence of the page now stands as a more acceptable revision of this page. More information was added to comply with the encyclopedic rules, and as it stands it appears to be a stub. I don't believe the article should be deleted because The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source; I contest deletion to the fullest extent perceivable, and will do anything to keep this article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.100 (talk) 20:43, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a single sentence, with no obvious means of being able to expand it via better sources, means at best I can say she doesn't deserve an article now. As for "The Hollywood Reporter is a nationally reliable third-party source", it looks to be as reliable as The Sun from my point of view ie: where accurate neutral reporting of facts takes very much a back seat to gossip and sensationalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The article has been updated and, as far as I can see, a one-sentence biography is known to be a stub. The desire to delete this article seems to stem from dislike of the person itself; biased. The Hollywood Reporter felt her to be important enough to mention, the writer of the article thereof from the reliable source, so sensationalism is not much of an argument when the fact remains that it's a notable source. One notable source is all it takes to be notable, even if that notability is very small, the sources are what Wikipedia deems as reliable. People keep nitpicking at every detail possible here, but it's a can of worms just being opened. One source, a stub article, request for external notability; done. There's no point I can see in wanting this deleted; simply mark up the notability citation, keep as a stub, and if there's no further improvement in this article over time it may then be appropriately requested for deletion. As of now this is simply biased against this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.173 (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, and kudos for improvements. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic reasoner[edit]

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

This article is basically a link farm, with a short unsourced description at the top and an unsourced comparison table which may be original research. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Not notable because there are too many published articles about it" isn't a convincing rationale.

This is indeed a crap article that fails to explain the significance of the topic. Probably as a direct result of Wikipedia's dislike of SemWeb topics and regular deletion of them. It doesn't matter to SemWeb people that this is a crap article, because they already know what reasoners are and they no longer give a damn about WP's foibles. However it's a failing of WP, and WP is failing its readership, to refuse to cover this topic. Perhaps WP would do rather better if it stopped trying to delete articles on quality grounds and instead made some effort to either fix them, or at least to stop alienating the people who could do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are misinterpreting my reason for suggesting deletion. A list of software and external links to its developers, forums, company websites, etc., is not the same as "published articles" about the topic. For the record, I nominated the page because if the unsourced information and all of the external links in the body of the article were removed, there would only be an almost empty page left. I don't know anything about any dislike of this topic; it sounds interesting to me. If you are familiar with semantic reasoners and know of published sources (not blogs, forms and other user contributed or developer websites) which explain it, why not add them? Maybe textbooks, computer magazines, professional journals? The external links would still have to be deleted, but some of the software items appear to have Wikipedia articles and could be moved to a "See also" section if there was an article to go with it. You are right, of course, that experts in the field do not need this article. It's readers like me who have a general interest in software and programming who would enjoy reading a properly written and sourced article. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your reason was. All I know is both WP policy, and the effects of your nomination. You ask SemWeb-knowledgeable people to contribute, but if articles don't then meet your invented standard (which isn't even WP:policy), throw them away. If you're not getting enough contribution, throw away even more of it. How could the result be anything else? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now, remove the one useful part of the article so that even people who understand it lose any useful value. Way to go! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find good sources on the topic which approach it in a similar way, discussing various specific tools which exist for the purpose — see Advanced Techniques in Web Intelligence, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've culled all the non-notable entries (superficially, I didn't search for RS for the redlinks) in the lists in the article and transferred the possibly OR comparison table to the talk page for future work, and removed what looked like a couple of promotional bits. The lead needs to be rewritten according to reliable sources. But a GScholar search shows 524 hits for "semantic reasoner" and 4,590 hits for "semantic reasoning"; this seems like a highly notable concept. A notable topic and article problems that are surmountable, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's now policy that list entries have to meet WP:Notable? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of cleanup of the link spam, I treated this as a list-based article, and per MOS:LIST and WP:CLN, these lists have entries that are supposed to be notable--either they link to a WP article (with the presumption of notability implied by the article) or they are sourced to independent reliable sources. There are other ways such lists can be justified as notable; for instance WP:LISTN suggests that if a list as a group is considered notable, that could be used too. It may be that there are RS out there comparing semantic reasoners. If so, great--we could use those to build a sourceable list and avoid OR and SYNTH. But without those, culling based on notability builds a defensible kernel of an article that can withstand the slings and arrows of AfD. And instead of simply kvetching about ill-treatment of a topic by WP folk, please pitch in and help build this article on stronger foundations. --Mark viking (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Kvetching"? "Pitch in and help"? Sure, because it's not as if I ever create any content, is it. WTF though would I ever work on SemWeb stuff, when key parts of it are up for blanket deletion if there's any question of article quality (which is no part of our conditions for deletion). A "defensible kernel of an article that can withstand the slings and arrows of AfD" is utter crap and totally against what WP should do, and used to do, per WP:IMPERFECT. We need an editing environment where editors are encouraged to contribute, and to do so gradually if that's what available to WP. What we have here is one that invites contributions from experts, then turns around and pisses all over them for no good reason.

If a project is even thinking that this topic deserves outright deletion and ignoring it from that point onwards (and that's what an AfD nomination is), a project that prioritises rappers and pokemon over a core SemWeb topic like this, then that's simply a project of no interest to the editors who might otherwise fix it. I don't know why, but WP does this whenever SemWeb topics come up. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do create good content and I respect your contributions. I apologize for the kvetching comment. I agree that WP:IMPERFECT should be a guiding principle. But the reality at AfD is that "this article is horrible, let's blow it up per WP:TNT or WP:ESSAY or, etc." can be an effective strategy for deletion, even with a notable topic. For a worthy topic, IMO the best way to counter that complaint is to rewrite, or at least cut out the worst parts of the article. If you think I've cut out valuable parts of the article along with the promotional link spam, feel free to revert. --Mark viking (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, I would like to reiterate that, as the nominator, I was in no way influenced by the fact that this article was about a "SemWeb topic". If articles like this were all being nominated by the same group of editors, it might be fair to think there was bias. If there is such a group I don't know about them and certainly would not agree with them. I didn't nominate the article because of its topic, but because of all the inappropriate content. It looks as though several editors are working on improving the article and it will likely be kept. If SemWeb articles are regularly being nominated for deletion, perhaps it's because those who write them are busily involved in their specialty and don't take the time to check on what type of information and sources should be in an encyclopedia article. I too have had articles deleted that were on topics I felt were important, so I don't go around frivolously nominating articles on topics I don't like. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the official website of the software listed calls it a "reasoner" of one type or another, and they are listed elsewhere as different types of "Reasoners" then its a real thing. I see http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Category:Rule_Reasoner where they call some of the software on the list Rule Reasoner. The first software listed has on its official website at http://bossam.wordpress.com/ where it calls itself an "ontology reasoner" and "semantic web". Dream Focus 00:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT delete per WP:OR. Mostly unsourced article making weird claims and it's unclear why many of the inference engines it lists qualify for this category. There are only handful of examples that would properly qualify for this topic [24] (but they are not given in this wiki article!) and they are all not-wiki-notable individually (Pellet, OWLIM, FaCT++, RacerPro), and all such proper examples are OWL-related, so they can be covered in the OWL article well enough. Another book covering the same stuff [25] calls this type of software (more appropriately) ontology reasoner. Perhaps redirecting this page to Web Ontology Language (OWL) is the best solution per WP:BLAR. If anyone find useful material in the page's history, it can be merged there later. But most of it fails WP:OR/WP:V as far as the claims go, starting with absurdly board definition etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the 'absurdly broad' definition in the lead is directly sourced to the first ref you give, a close paraphrasing/copyvio in fact. So that bit is verifiable. --Mark viking (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you prepend "In the field of the semantic web," (which is implicit in a book chapter about... duh... the semantic web, then the def is not absurdly broad anymore, but Wikipedia (as a whole) isn't a book about the semantic web, some context is needed before one defines "reasoner" in such terms (or equates facts with axioms). Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that book is from 2010 and this article existed from 2007, so I'm not sure who copied who, just yet. The first version of the article didn't have the def, but I don't have the time now to investigate further right now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entirely notable article, certainly not a link farm Anne, and your Afd reasoning is dubious at best. Are you trying to get rid of the article because it has too many links. It a huge and expanding field. The article is clearly passes WP:GNG.scope_creep talk 15:17 02 Feb 2014 (UTC)

In Anne's defense, many non-notable links were removed after nomination. While I disagree that deletion is the best approach, I believe the nomination was done in good faith. --Mark viking (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has changed considerably. The version that I nominated had many external links in the body of the article, unsourced original research, and almost no sources for verification of the information ([26]). However, according to Wikipedia:External links, external links should only be in the "external links" section, not in paragraphs or bulleted sections in the main article, which should have wikilinks and citations instead. It's not just that some of the links were to (apparently) non-notable web pages, but that they were there at all. I too would rather see an article improved rather than deleted, but how do I explain to new users that they have to remove the external links in their articles if the experienced users don't have to do the same? If every single link was to a world famous "Semantic reasoner", they should all be internal links. Looking at the article now, it seems to me that some of the items that are currently in the "External links" section are actually references, and should be moved to that section, whereas the links next to the software items in the article should be either made into citations if they are links to published articles, or moved to the external links section if they lead to websites created by the software's developers. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Anne. scope_creep talk 15:08 04 Feb 2014 (UTC)

Keep - This appears to be closely tied with Web Ontology Language, Knowledge representation and reasoning, Ontology language and Knowledge base. Organization of this information can certainly be improved but I strongly believe that deleting or discussion at AfD is not the best way to get there. ~KvnG 18:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Haller[edit]

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

No indication of significance Ireneshih (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Ireneshih - No indication of significance? She's been on a ton of Boards, some of which include the World Security Institute, The Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and being the Board Chair at Free The Children, one of the most successful non-profits in the world. The references in the article include a Forbes article about her being honored at a Forbes Women Leadership Event, a Huffington Post article detailing her life and work, a website that journalists use for sources, and numerous credible non-profit websites. This is my first article on Wikipedia, and certainly won't be my last, but I thought that Haller was an interesting subject for my first piece. I was surprised she didn't already have one! -United191 10:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate significance, just take a look at the 'books' link you set up... when you click it, the first to come up is quite obviously Haller - entitled "Do Your Giving While You Are Living: Inspirational Lessons." United191 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How are we moving forward with this? United191 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't quite find her to be notable as Wikipedia defines it. Philanthropy is nice, serving on boards of directors is fine, being an activist is all very well - but none of those things by themselves amount to notability. In order to have an article here, a person must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources, and I could find none. The only Reliable Source cited in the article is the obituary of her first husband. The other citations are either based on information she herself supplied, or are not what we consider a Reliable Source. And I could not find significant material for either Eva Haller or Eva Roman on a search. It sounds like she is a wonderful and remarkable woman, but without the independent sources to prove it, we can't have an article on her. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is my first article on Wikipedia, but I did A LOT of research for it, to avoid this specifically. Although the only reference that you said was trustworthy was her late husband’s obit, there are article in the page from Forbes, the Huffington Post, Jane Fonda’s blog, University websites, and many more. I’ve been using Wikipedia for years, and I’ve seen tons of people with less ‘notability’ than this woman. Understandably, some of the information from these references came directly from her, but some absolutely did not. I invite you to go and read the two books I cited, and the book that comes up when you search for her via the book database on the AfD page. I read them in their entirety.

To me, there’s also a principle of the matter. People from her generation, especially that did a lot before the Internet age, don’t have an extensive online record of their life. I went through all of the information that could be found online, which is extensive and consistent, and THEN more external sources to make sure that this is a reliable article.

For many people who aren’t necessarily at celebrity status, like this woman, there is no one place that lists everything that they’ve done, except for Wikipedia. If she isn’t ‘notable,’ there are thousands of other pages that should be taken down. She is the Board Chairwoman, at 83, for the largest non-profit in Canada, Free The Children. She's been around since their inception… and because of their work incorporating all of society into a child's education, their success is used as a model for other charities and people trying to build in Third World countries!

She’s a Nazi survivor, philanthropist, and change maker. Three of her projects have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (one is Free The Children). She is not only notable, but she is significant. She’s made much more of a change through being on these Boards, it seems like, than you or I will probably ever make in our lives! We need to keep a record of these people that have helped create and shape society so that when generations upon generations after us go back to look and find out who was responsible, the record will accurately stand!

If we write her off, then we are essentially going to be writing off an entire generation of people's information that have limited resources from which we can research… They had the unfortunate experience to be born before the Internet age… what we are telling them is that their accomplishments and contribution to society did not matter. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia to record all the important people and events that we would find throughout history, not just the ones who happen to be fortunate enough to be born in the Internet age!

This is a woman who has been given awards by the United Nations, AARP, Forbes, and many others, at the very least, that is notable.

Let’s find a way to make her page stay. You have to realize, that when you say we should delete it, you’re essentially writing her life off as not notable enough to be remembered and unbiasedly reflected upon on Wikipedia, based of off a number of reliable sources.United191 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Forbes and Huffpost have a reasonable amount of coverage, but that's about it toward meeting WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post & Forbes articles are great, but there are many more sources to be found... I'd suggest you also take a look at the Red Room Magazine article, and all of her bios from different Boards. They are all consistent with what the other publications are saying, and provide even more detail and context. United191 (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can also see clearly that she has met the criteria for WP:BIO with the two basic criteria for any article: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times - she has been honored by the UN, Forbes, AARP, and the Rubin Museum, just to name the ones that I found. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - she has been with Free the Children since the year after they were founded, and has lead the Board since then... it's now the largest non-profit in Canada. She's been on National Security Boards, by receiving the AARP Mentorship Award, we know she has mentored countless people, and lastly, she's been awarded a Lifetime Achievement Award by UNFPA - as is verified by pictures of her on their Facebook page, and text on their website. United191 (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone reviewing this has some time tomorrow, watch 60 Minutes on CBS before the Super Bowl. It looks like her project, Free The Children, will be featured. United191 (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on this? I think the best possible solution is to keep the article and continue editing it... the notability is definitley here, and it seems like everybody has aknowledged that (even MelanieN on her own talk page). United191 (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a week since the extension of this page... any more input? How shall we proceed? United191 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Also, the nomination's rationale "no indication of significance" is vague relative to content in the article, in which indication of significance does exist. Some source examples that demonstrate this subject passes WP:BASIC include:

Forbes
Do Your Giving While You Are Living. pp. 71-72. ISBN 160037851X
Huffington Post (newsblog)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree with Northamerica1000 - passes WP:BASIC with flying colours, and I see definitive significance. The last few AfDs I've commented on today haven't had the amount of reliable sources that this one does, like the ones in the above list. Maybe some other sources can be added, like the book above, but they're already relatively well covered in the original version. SayItRight1 (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added the book Northamerica1000 mentioned to the article... SayItRight1 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hirsh[edit]

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

First AfD ended in no consensus with little participation about three months ago. Lets try again. Borderline at best on notability. I have to lean to delete here, but maybe we can get more participation this time. Safiel (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick Google turned up several stories about, and interviews with this guy in WP:RS publications in the first couple pages of hits. He seems to have sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of stories on the web featuring or interviewing him as a commentator on technology — but that's not the same thing as stories or interviews where he's the subject of the coverage. The latter kind of coverage is what we're after when determining whether there's enough verifiable content about a person to support a Wikipedia article or not, and there isn't a lot of that out there. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion At the very least he can be noted in a couple sentences in his wife's articles. I'malso not convinced he isn't independently notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose deletion One of Canada's leading commentator and broadcaster about technological matters. Has a major nation-wide audience on highly respectable Canadian Broadcasting Company. The AFD is astonishing. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person can quite easily be a "leading commentator and broadcaster" with a "major nation-wide audience" while still not actually being the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article. I've heard of the guy too, but the fact that there isn't a whole lot of coverage about him is not "astonishing" — media personalities actually fall quite frequently on the wrong side of the distinction between I've-heard-of-them "fame" and properly-sourceable "notability", because the fact that they appear in media coverage of other topics is not the same thing as being the subject of media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said above and in the first AFD, the problem here is that while he frequently appears in media coverage of other subjects as an authority on those matters, he isn't the subject of enough media coverage — the kind where he's the topic of the coverage — to write a properly verifiable article that cites enough reliable sources to get past WP:GNG. We actually have this problem quite frequently with television and radio personalities — their names are well-known enough that they seem notable, but since they aren't the subject of the coverage it's almost impossible to actually write an encyclopedia article about them without relying almost entirely on primary sources like their Speakers Bureau profile or their "meet our personalities" blurb on the website of the television or radio outlet that they work for. He's certainly notable enough in principle that he should qualify for an article — but this article, as written, is not good enough to be kept, and there aren't enough sources out there about him to improve it. Delete, but do so without prejudice against future recreation if and when there are more good sources that can be cited. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[27] and [28] are both half-decent pieces that are about him, rather than him providing his opinions. They are, however, local sources. I would say, however, that these do combine with the fact that he seems to be CBC's go-to man for this sort of thing to convey some notability, as much per WP:COMMONSENSE. As the coverage on him is generally local, however, this is a Weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:26, 30 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. Consensus that additional info about judo career establish notability.Mojo Hand (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alida Gray[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and sources fail to establish notability as per WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her notability isn't established based on MMA. Her notability is based on being an Olympic Judo athlete. Typically a person who is an olympic judo athlete is an automatic qualifier for notability. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She did fight for the World Series of Fighting Title [29]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She was an alternate and did not compete at the olympics.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being an olympic alternate means that person is top 2 in a nation at a weight class. That is highly notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Marisa Pedulla defeated Jo Anne Quiring in final match of that weight class (under 52 kg) at the 1996 trials.Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[31]CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Not notable as an MMA fighter. Not clear what being an Olympic "alternate" means (see my comment above), but it's not enough to claim automatic notability. There are no matches for "Alida Gray" at judoinside.com, which includes U.S. national championship events since 1953 and Olympic trials since 1992. A search for Alida Gray (+judo, but without MMA or Aguilar or wiki) turns up an article on her as the Cal Poly softball shortstop in "SOFTBALL BEAT PLAYER SPOTLIGHT", which is not enough to show she meets WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on discussion below I believe she meets WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

commenthttp://wsof.com/news-view.php?id=126 , http://www.graymma.com/index.php/alida-gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyAces489 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't listed as one of the 1995 national champions (Jo Anne Quiring was) and I can't find any record of her at the world championships (although I could only find a listing of the top 8). I did find some records for a "Yvette Gray" at judoinside.com--could these be the same person? I couldn't find any evidence of her using two names, but it appears Yvette would meet WP:MANOTE. Mdtemp (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdtemp, you are correct. Her name is Alida Yvette Gray.[32]

Her record is shown as being. Date Result Judo Event Comp. Cat.
03-May-1997 3 US National Championships Ft. Lauderdale NC U52
26-Mar-1997 1 Liberty Bell Judo Classic Philadelphia IT U52
09-Mar-1997 5 Czech Cup Prague WCup U52
13-Apr-1996 3 US National Championships San Jos� (Cal) NC U52
13-Jan-1996 3 US Olympic Trials NT U52
29-Apr-1995 2 US National Championships Indianapolis NC U52
09-Apr-1994 2 US National Championships Irvine NC U52
Help us to find
Send date 1 US National Junior Olympics Scott Rice NJC U52
[33] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Criteria establishing notability should be in the article but in any case participation in the above events does not establish notability.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment those are the events she received a medal in. CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please put the information in the article. Then the notability can be properly judged.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[34]CrazyAces489 (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the actual article - when articles (like this one) are proposed for deletion it is initially based on what the article does or does not contain.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable for MMA, but clearly meets WP:MANOTE with four podium finishes at the U.S. national judo championships. Nice work by CrazyAces489 and Mdtemp. Papaursa (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:MANOTE. Drunk in Paris (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Platter[edit]

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

No indication of significance and third party reference links Itsalleasy (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Article makes claims of significance, which is inaptly-applied CSD criteria not applicable here. Article contains links to substantial coverage in third-party reliable sources, so easily passes WP:GNG. Also passes WP:ARTIST #4 with exhibition at Museum of Modern Art --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Enock4seth blanked most of article without good explanation (I don't know what "close paragraphing issues" are). This version has considerably more detail, including material from reviews. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored to earlier version -- no explanation given for deleting good references.--Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of my edit all the refs I've removed were not valid via my browser, hence I removed and replaced them. Sorry if my contribution to prevent article from deletion was inappropriate. And I think we should keep this article. Thanks. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Eggishorn. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs fixing...Modernist (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree that it needs cleanup. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:05, 31 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. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Environmental Directory[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in what user:DGG thinks of this subject's notability. Is it widely held by libraries? Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it's a online file, that would not necessarily be cataloged, so I'm checking. I see only 24 libraries in Worldcat; But the collection I know best, Gale's ENVIROnetBASE : environmental resources online, (the successor to Gale Environmental Sourcebook) has only 28. The publication of directories was much more important before the internet. In any case, the best description of the resources is here Envirosource, since it is a free search engine, has only 4 listings, but It's the (free) place I would recommend. DGG ( talk ) 22:30, 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, Wizardman 16:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently on the fence; there are several reliable source mentions of the database, but they are fairly incidental ("this exists") mentions. The directory's official website, in Japanese, is currently a portal to deriheru (prostitution legitimized as a medical service) providers in Japan. The National Environmental Directory Database listed by Envirosource points to a dead web page at the University of Michigan. The Madison Public Library links to a North American Association for Environmental Education web page which allows searches of the National Environmental Directory, but searching the database also points to a dead link. Elsewhere the NAAEE simply links to the Japanese prostitution website. The directory and prostitution website are listed in a dozen or so books, but only incidentally, among lists of other websites, and are singled out in a couple peer-reviewed journal articles (here and here). The EPA lists a "National Environmental Directory of Minority and Women-owned Businesses", but it's not clear that it has any relation to this directory. ––Agyle (talk) 18:06, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:49, 30 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 nomination has been countered in the discussion below. Furthermore, the nomination appears to be based upon the sourcing within the article, rather than the overall availability of sources about the topic (see WP:NRVE). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrency (road)[edit]

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

All of the sources in this article are either:

a.) roadgeek fansites

b.) DOT listings or road maps that prove only that the concurrencies exist

c.) tagged otherwise as unreliable

Nowhere could I find anything that discusses the actual term as an encyclopedic topic. This is just original research plain and simple. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: AfD isn't cleanup, and contrary to the nomination, this concept (under this or other names) does exist. The nominator cannot dispute that the concept that a single section of roadway bearing two or more highway numbers is not a common occurrence. Imzadi 1979 → 07:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A point to rebut a flawed part of the above analysis of the sources: a and c are the same category. The two footnotes tagged as unreliable are the two self-published roadgeek sites being cited. As to part b, there is a news article present. In addition to that, I offer:
  - [35], a page from the makers of ArcGIS cartography software that defines the concept under the term "overlap" and how it applies to a cartographic workflow.
  - The Wisconsin DOT uses "concurrent" on a trivia page about their state trunk highway system and in a project study related to I-41 in the state.
  - The Texas DOT uses the same term to describe overlapping highway routings.
  - A travel guide website uses the term.
  - ArcGIS also uses "concurrency" in its user help forums.
  This shows the term is in use in several contexts, sufficient to warrant notability. Again, WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Imzadi1979. --Rs chen 7754 07:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Roadgeek sites may be unreliable as self-published sources, but they are verifiable, numerous, and global. The article certainly is miles away from anything great, but it discusses a genuine topic that is well-covered. In addition, over 4000 pages (I really wish it was 9000) link to this topic. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Imzadi1979:, @Floydian: Then where are the reliable sources hmm? Can't have an article without good sources. And I ain't seeing them. If there are good sources, prove it. Don't just say "it's notable because it exists in a lot of places and has a lot of inbound links". Well no shit, it has a lot of links — every highway on Wikipedia has a page. It exists. But where is the encyclopedic discussion on it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the nom is challenging that the concept exists. The nominator makes a valid point. When you examine the sources, the first one uses the term "coincident" and the second uses the term "common section." None of the sources use the word "concurrent" or "concurrency." Doing a quick Google search turns up nothing which supports that the term "concurrency" is not a coloquialism. I'm inclined to support deletion. However, this may be an acceptable time to ignore all rules. I believe this article is a good change by common sense, and it improves the encyclopedia. --hmich176 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See above, my reply here is handled by a refutation of a misleading portion of the nomination statement. Imzadi 1979 → 09:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate your effort to pull in more sources, @Imzadi1979:. --hmich176 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article covers an important road topic. All of the above USRD editors have good points as to why it should be kept. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Imzadi1979. Appropriate source material exists. The article is not "original research plain and simple." --hmich176 10:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I suggest you read WP:NEGLECT TenPoundHammer especially "A variation of this is a WP:POINT: an editor wants an article improved but lacks the time or skills to actually improve it, so the article is nominated for deletion in the hope that another editor will take notice and improve the article during its pending deletion period and before the artificial deadline of the deletion process." --Admr Boltz 13:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Sources exist, and while the current sources are not suitable for the article, others can be found. Epicgenius (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. T C N7JM 15:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. I'll add that any reasonable person would concede this article is full of fancruft, excessive examples and sadly probably always will be. It's just one of those topics that every roadgeek feels compelled to add, "ohh you forgot there's one in MY hometown, let me add it in bold type in the lead". However, the criteria for deletion should be notability. Nobody would argue that U.S. Route 66 should be deleted because that article is similarly full of fancruft, barely relevant random fact insertions and pop culture irrelevance. Dave (talk) 17:18, 30 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. Speedy deleted per G3 & G5 Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agrippina, Countess von Zarnekau[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: this article is tagged as a hoax and I've been unable to establish that the listed references verify the article's content. I've started sorting through ProQuest trying to locate the article's references. I've been able to locate one so far ("Militant Princess without a Country," Washington Post) and it doesn't mention the existence of the article's subject. The article contains two openly accessible references, both in Georgian; one of the refs is unreliable as it's hosted on a site that accepts user submissions([36]). See also a factual error pointed out on the talk page. The article's primary contributor is indefblocked sockpuppet Permaveli (talk · contribs). A lot of red flags here. Muchness (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it with a hoax speedy, as I can't find any reliable sources that show that this person actually exists. A search for her name brings up nothing. The article shows sources, but I can't actually find where these sources mention her. All of what I am finding seems to stem from this Wikipedia article. I'm also a little leery of the photographs since some of them look like they're different people. I'll put a notice in on Wikimedia Commons that they'll likely want to delete the photos since this seems to be a very blatant hoax, so the photos aren't representing the right person(s). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg was certainly married to this woman. If you browse the Google Books for "Oldenburg" and "Zarnekau", some 19th-century references will pop up. Their kids are listed here. Her purported involvement in the marriage of Grand Duke George Alexandrovich of Russia is a hoax, however, because the tsesarevich never married. (He knew that he was mortally ill and tried to limit his contacts with women). Much of the article needs to be checked against sources. Unreliable stuff should be excised. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for confirming her existence. I've also found an obituary of Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg that mentions her: Marquise De Fontenoy. "Kings Servants of the Poor To-Day". The Washington Post. 12 Apr 1906: 6. She is mentioned at thepeerage.com here. Perhaps the article should be provisionally redirected to Duke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg while interested parties work on establishing her notability and verifying all of the article's content? --Muchness (talk) 09:42, 30 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. slakr^\ talk / 12:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narayan Sai[edit]

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

Since there was no consensus last time, nominating again. Most references refer to him to "Asaram's son". His father is famous, his notability is questionable. IMO WP:GNG is not satisfied. '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail' is violated. News reports (which feature on 7th or 8th pages on newspapers) covering controversy about Asaram's son, is really not significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a collection of news reports WP:NOTNEWS. Except this father's cult websites, its biography or works are not covered anywhere Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated 6 weeks ago. And 3 months before that. Can we give it a rest, please? There will be no difference after 6 weeks. -- GreenC 06:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the record, as a few weeks ago. -- GreenC 05:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows extensive coverage in many reliable sources in India. Coverage of notable offspring of notable people will often mention their parents. But when the sources go on to give significant coverage to the offspring, that makes those people independently notable. That's the case here. Also, sources on page 7 or 8 are perfectly fine for establishing notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't establish Wikipedia content.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:STICK in regards to recent discussion, quote: "If the debate died a natural death – let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but you're going to have to live with it." Roberticus (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bands and musicians? Hehehe.... I will let it stay. Maybe people will find him notable as singer of bhajans. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The AfD being closed No consensus is not an excuse to AfD it again two weeks later. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete or redirect to father. he is no more independently notable now than he was then. WP:BLPCRIME / WP:BLP1E. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per TRPoD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Asaram Bapu - my views are same as at were at time of previous nomination. Jethwarp (talk) 09:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added 2 more sources to the article which in their title refer to him solely & directly, and indicate that his issues continue to elicit independent & reliable coverage on their own merits: Narayan Sai confessed to rape: Cops Bribe conspiracy: Narayan Sai subjected to voice spectrography test Though his father is consistently mentioned within the articles, most of titles listed here mention only the son, which to me evidences an independent notability in his own right. Roberticus (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect/merge should be an effective compromise. Wouldn't support deleting as he seems to be notable in a multitude of sources. Though that ofcourse doesn't mean he automatically gets his own page. Or maybe his political party page could be the target article.Lihaas (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poudar[edit]

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

I've been following changes on this page since 21 December, but I'm still not 100% sure what the topic is supposed to be. It is apparently a group of people, perhaps from Nepal with diaspora in the Americas and Europe, but some versions of the page assert, "They are thickly populated in international countries with surname Paudarco" (from the 20 December 2013 version of the page). Prior to 20 December, the name was a redirect to Paudel, which is an article about a surname. Some edits to the page suggest that the topic is the name itself, not an ethnic group or community.

The main editor of the page (somewhat confusingly, he has used two different names, User:Naver.np and User:Manzilnfl) has made what are clearly good-faith attempts to improve the page. Unfortunately, they have not improved it much at all.

One further confusing issue: Pau d'arco is the name of several places in Brazil and is a common name for two plant ~~species~~ genera, one of which is touted as a health supplement. Web searches for that name turn up many results (some of which have been cited as references on this article at various times), but none, as far as I can see, is relevant to the Poudar people or the Paudel/Poudar name. Cnilep (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the course of trying to notify previous editors about this discussion, I discovered at Paudarco manzil, Paudarco Manzil, Manzil Paudarco, and MANZIL PAUDARCO were all speedy deleted as either "no context" or "no assertion of notability". I don't know if that has any bearing on this article. Cnilep (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article has no relevant sources, it is very unclear, a web search for the terms turn up nothing relevant. SchreiberBike talk 08:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per SchreiberBike. It seems almost to be a coatrack thing, assembling a variety of poor sources that contain a variety of names of vague similarity. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Feel free to contact me if his circumstances change. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Toby[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that he will play for Orlando City SC, which is speculation in violation of WP:CRYSTAL and never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient coverage to pass GNG. Can always restore if he plays. Fenix down (talk) 10:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as original PRODder; fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating editor has misrepresented the grounds for removing the prod. It wasn't because he will play, but because there's little point wasting time and resources deleting an article, that most likely will be validly recreated when the season starts in a few weeks. However, if y'all really want to waste everyone's time, it's a valid deletion ... but I once again fail to see some want so desperately to play WP:WHACAMOLE rather than showing some patience and WP:COMMONSENSE and simply waiting a few weeks to see what happens. I fail to see the harm in an aritlce does appearing a few weeks prematurely. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The article can be restored at the click of a button when subject becomes notable, but at the moment he is not. JMHamo (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't restore at a click of a button. And why waste everyone's time with what is most likely a temporary deletion? Can just as easily argue that it can be deleted with a click of a button if he isn't even riding the bench in a few weeks. Nfitz (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use WP:DRV when he's notable. JMHamo (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the last time I went to WP:DRV after a player whose article had been deleted had made a first-team start, there were complaints that wasn't an appropriate thing for WP:DRV. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: - by that logic we should have an article on all FPL academy players on the grounds that they will probably play at some point in the next few years. Your second point makes no sense as you are basically saying "he's not notable now, but let's keep the article for a while to see if he continues not to be notable". Surely you understand that that is the exact opposite of what GNG requires?!? Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@JMHamo: You have completely failed to comprehend, and are misrepresenting my position. I have not said articles should be created for Academy players. This isn't an Academy player, this is a player who would be expected to be in the first team. I'm simply saying that there's no point wasting everyone's time by playing WP:WHACAMOLE for an article that will most likely be legitimately recreated within weeks when the season starts. To try and delete this article shows a complete lack of WP:COMMONSENSE, patience, and maturity. But go ahead anyway ... it's the complete waste of everyone's time I fail to comprehend. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and the information contained within needs to be 100% accurate, especially for BLP articles. We do not make assumptions about the future. JMHamo (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to be 100% accurate. What's not accurate in the article? It says he plays for Orlando City. So does Orlando City's website [37]. Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails notability guidelines. Plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. – Michael (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG with media articles about him. [38] [39] [40]. There's more routine stuff over the years, documenting his history, but wouldn't establish GNG ... [41] [42][43]. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Nfitz, you seem to have a real difficulty understanding GNG. A report from a club signing him (not secondary) and two other reports from one source (not multiple) do not meet a guideline which specifically states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list" (original wording, bolding mine). WP:ROUTINE coverage is not a criteria for inclusion of material, so please don't bring it into these various discussions. GNG is not met here, so delete. C 679 13:05, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cloudz679. - Turtlepump (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Edgardo Contreras[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the Salvadoran top flight it fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football, so fails WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient coverage to pass GNG. No indication EL Salvadorean lague is fully pro even though the club he plays for might be. Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence this player meets notability guidelines. C 679 13:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 13:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya Society for Intercultural Dialogue[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)

No third neutral references to prove its notability. Only third party references are obscure news pieces that talk about a FIR of fraud in October been filled against the organization in the local Varanasi papers. This article created in November reads like a PR activity to promote the organization, all based on their own websites and blogs. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No third neutral references to prove its notability"

I disagree that there is no third neutral reference. Although there is indeed an over-abundance of references to the Society web site and Society managed blogs I would not say that there are op third neutral references. Most of this links have an active hyperlink to these independent sources, so they can be verified independently. I counted 31 such references , viz. See External references- Wikipedia page. Kautilya.

Articles 19(1)(c) and 30 of the Constitution of India, Income Tax Act, 1961, Public Trusts Acts of various states, Societies Registration Act, 1860, Section 25 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976.
TVP channel, Youtube
Arthashastra, Penguin.
Filocafè, Trip Advisor.
Cape Town Declaration, Responsible tourism partnership.
Tourism, Religion and Spiritual Journeys, Routledge.
Heritage Resources if Varanasi, Indian Heritage Cities Network.
Banaras, the City Revealed, Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts.
Proposing Varanasi for the World Heritage List of UNESCO, Varanasi Development Authority
Singh, Rana P.B., Vrinda Dar and S. Pravin, Rationales for including Varanasi as heritage city in the UNESCO World Heritage List, National Geographic Journal of India (Varanasi) 2001, 47:177-200
The Varanasi Heritage Dossier, Wikiversity
Varanasi Heritage Zone, Varanasi Development Authority.
You can place Kashi on Unesco world heritage list, The Times of India.
Unplanned construction destroying riverfront majesty, The Times of India.
थाती पर मंडराता खतरा, India Today.
Ganga continues to be exploited, The Times of India.
K. G. BalaKrishnan, Chief Justice of India (8th Oct. 2008). "Growth of Public Interest Litigation in India". Supreme Court of India.
Adv. Mihir Deasi and Adv. Kamayani Bali Mahabal (ed.). "Introduction to Public Interest Litigation". Introduction to Public Interest Litigation, in Health Care Case Law in India – A Reader by CEHAT and ICHRL. Retrieved 2012-04-26.
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005, Gvt. of India.
Allahabad High Court Order Dated 26 May 2006, Allahabad High Court.
PIL 31229 of 2005 - 14 March 2013, Allahabad High Court Judgment.
Allahabad High Court Order of 9 October 2013, Allahabad High Court.
Allahabad High Court Order Dated 29 July 2013, Allahabad High Court.
हाईकोर्ट ने सरकार से वाराणसी के घाटों के सौंदर्यीकरण का प्रस्ताव मांगा, नवभारत टाइम्स
एनजीओ के खिलाफ निकाला जुलूस, जागरण.
कौटिल्य सोसायटी के सदस्यों की गिरफ्तारी न होने से क्षुब्ध शिवसैनिकों ने जुलूस निकाला, Gandiv Hindi Daily.
धर्म नगरी में विदेशियों को हुक्का, काशी में उबाल, LiveVns.com.
NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herals.
Facebook expose: 'Hookah bar' run by NGO in garb of cultural activity, Daily Bhaskar.
Social organization booked for running 'hukka bar'; 9 arrested, IBN live.

--Rahulkepapa (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All high-quality references like Routledge, Times of India, UNESCO DO NOT mention the organization at all, but reference sentences about Varanasi, the city. Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court keeps a record of each PIL and court case, that does not establish notability. "NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herald" is the coverage the organization has really got in the Varanasi editions of newspapers. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Obscure news pieces that talk about a FIR of fraud in October been filled against the organization in the local Varanasi papers. This article created in November reads like a PR activity to promote the organization, all based on their own websites and blogs."

The article mentioned by the editor who proposes the deletion of the Kautilya Society page is: Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies published in ⇒ Wikinews on Sunday, November 17, 2013. It is not about a fraud case but about a Public Interest Litigation. Wikinews editors are actively engaged in revisions to make sure that its articles are of good quality and it is unlikely that any PR activity over there will get passed by the editors. In the case of this article you can see the writing and revision process in n:Talk:Litigation for Varanasi Heritage intensifies and the final "pass" given there by Bddpaux. --Rahulkepapa (talk) 13:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahulkepapa forgot to mention that Wikinews article is written by him. Wikipedia and other sister projects are not contributedWP:RS. The PIL has hardly any coverage, it is the hookah bar (under the organization is accused of fraud) that have news coverage. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not true that the PIL has not coverage in the Indian and specifically the Varanasi press. The fact that rahulkepapa was the main contributor to this article does not imply that he has no authority to comment about it. His point are valid that the article went under intense scrutiny and only after such scrutiny it was passed. I feel that Redtigerxyz is taking the issue too personally. The PIL for heritage for the heritage in Varanasi has a lot of significance for the city and beyond and more debate and partecipation is needed. Kautilya Society is a well known NGO in the city and more people will take part to the debate. Keep the article under scrutiny but please do not delete it as this will not give the opportunity for more additions and corrections. --Abufausto (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Abufausto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment The objection is raised that "a major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I agree that it seems that the major contributor to this articles seems to know the matter first hand. However it does not appear to me that there is evidence of a conflict of interests. as defined by the Wikipedia policies as a case "when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest". In fact there is ample spaces given also to the argumentation of those who oppose the Society. (Redtigerxyz only refers to those articles!) This reveals that the contributor has not been partial although he may still have personal inclinations that he was not sufficiently able to clean up. But he tried to be "objective" and refer favorable and unfavorable augmentations bring about the Society. Heritage protection in Varanasi is a hot issue and requesting "deletion" before requesting "additional sources required" is excessive. More time is needed to be given for improvements and corrections that can modify the initial contributions and bring it more in line with Wikipedia requirements. --Abufausto (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck your second "Keep". You may only !vote once. Further comments should be preceeded by Comment. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Redtigerxyz noticed, the article did in fact contain an inadequate number of citations. As Abufausto suggested, other Wikipedia editors would need to contribute to the article by inserting more citations. I will work on and add more citations and references from the Indian media that cover the main activities of the Kautilya Society on heritage protection and the Public Interest Litigation. Please keep the article and allow more time to do such a revision.Vrindadar (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Vrindadar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. I have a copy of the book cited in the references - Banaras, the City Revealed, Marg Publications on behalf of the National Centre for the Performing Arts. - and Kautilya Society activities for heritage protection are described at page 77 and 78. Kautilya Society work for the heritage protection is also specifically mentioned in the following article quoted in the references: You can place Kashi on Unesco world heritage list, The Times of India. Fleshandbones00 (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Fleshandbones00 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". Fighting a PIL for heritage protection is, in the Indian context, surely an important issue and information about a society doing this work deserves a place in the Wikipedia. In spite of the cultural importance of Varanasi, local stakeholders here may not have full knowledge of Wikipedia standards and rules but they should be given adequate time to contribute and improve the articles. Some citations may be in excess but at least few independent sources surely prove the article's notability. Redtigerxyz is excessive while saying that "NGO runs hookah bar, cops pull down smokescreen, Deccan Herald" is the coverage the organization has really got in the Varanasi editions of newspapers"--Gaurigrazia (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Gaurigrazia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would suggest keeping this wikipedia page and not deleting it. The page has a substantial number of references, a larger number than many Wikipedia pages that are currently not contested. I also don't understand the rational brought for by User:Redtigerxyz for deleting the page. It surely needs improvement but deleting the page does not do justice to either the organization nor its critics. Like most pages of organization on Wikipedia, there should be a section of in the page called "Controversies" where information gathered by User:Redtigerxyz can be inserted. I believe it is important that global media channels like Wikipedia give space to small non-government organizations and allow them to disseminate information of their projects on Wikipedia. In the Kautilya Society page one can see a lot of effort in drafting an informative page of high quality and this kind of participation should be promoted. Information for this page is surely taken from the page and blog of the Kautilya Society, but this is their official website and as such a reliable source of information. New-media articles and academic journals are not the only source of reliable information.

There is substantial information online showing the existence of Kautilya Socity, from news articles to tripadvisor and facebook to make it notable and subsequently eligible for a page on Wikipedia.

A last point, from my knowledge the society by googling it, it seems to be called "Kautilya Society" and not "Kautilya Society for intercultural dialogue" and would subsequently suggest changing the page name.Faustoaarya (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC) — Faustoaarya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~You have already opined "Keep" above. Please stop bolding the word in further comments.~~ Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have confused you with User:Abufausto above, whose name is quite similar to yours. Voceditenore (talk) 10:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has nobody noticed how promotional this is? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note left on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FKautilya_Society_for_Intercultural_Dialogue about participation of "new" users. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NGO. Only independent, third-party RS (Times of India) is a few passing references. Miniapolis 00:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The attempts at padding this article with "references" from their own websites, blogs, and YouTube videos; self-published material on Wikiversity, WikiBooks, WikiTravel, and WikiNews; multiple user-generated reviews in sites like TripAdvisor, etc.; primary source court documents; and extensive waffle about general environmental issues and Hindu philosophy cannot mask the fact that the subject comprehensively fails WP:NGO. The society brought a law-suit against some local hotels for illegal building works. Their targets brought counter-charges of them running a hotel for hookah-smoking tourists under the guise of an NGO. End of discussion. This organisation/hotel has received only passing mention in major news sources. There is absolutely no significant in-depth coverage in truly independent reliable sources of the society itself—its history, its impact, its activities (apart from running a hotel for hookah-smoking tourists and bringing a law suit). Even the interview with its founder has only one question about the society and brief answer at the very end of the interview ([44], p. 20). This article is also so promotional and full of soapboxing for their cause, that one could additionally argue for deletion via WP:BLOWITUP. It would need a fundamental re-write from zero to bring it anywhere near the semblance of an encyclopedia article. Even then, there would be no independent publications to source any assertions about the society, apart from the fact they brought a lawsuit against some local hotels and had some non-notable charges brought against themselves.
The COI here is blatantly obvious. The "Keep" !votes are all coming from the article's creator (who also wrote the WikiVersity, WikiBooks, and WikiNews pages and made the multiple videos which are linked from the article) and several other single-purpose accounts (at least one of which appears to have been created for the purpose of participating in this AfD, two of which have remarkably similar names, and another who has the same name as the Society's secretary quoted in the article and speaking in the videos). Note also their blatant advertising links on Commons [45]. Although COI in itself is not reason for deletion if an article is fixable (which this one clearly isn't), the commentary by these editors in the AfD discussion needs to be seen in that light. Voceditenore (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Johnson (actress)[edit]

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

Does not demonstrate notbility. She has modeled for 2 photographers and stared in short film/advert for 1 of those photographers. Article created by user Katiejhnsn, which appears to be the subject of the article herself. Article doesn't appear to have ever had 'New unreviewed article' or similar template. Lopifalko (talk) 12:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On notability, I currently have no opinion. ¶ I'm not aware that it's necessary to add Template:New unreviewed article to a new, unreviewed article. I've created a fair number of articles but have never added it, and indeed have only rarely seen it used by others. ¶ Even if the article was/is autobiographical, autobiography is not among the reasons for deletion. -- Hoary (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Template:New unreviewed article, sorry, my mistake, I thought all new articles had to begin with a 'This page is a new unreviewed article....' status. Perhaps I'm confusing my templates. -Lopifalko (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:11, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kathi Cozzone[edit]

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

This bio is of a local politician, the sources discussing Cozzone are local which is not significant coverage as defined in the notability guidelines. One national reach publication, Roll Call, only gives fleeting mention (again not significant coverage). ColonelHenry (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that significant coverage requires non-local sources? Thanks, Orser67 (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability guidelines is WP:POLITICIAN, and IMHO, Cozzone is not a major local politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. I worked for a local paper 15 years ago, they're rather pathetic and needy to fill the page...The Unionville Times piece[46] was likely a press release from Cozzone at the beginning of campaign season. Likely self-published press release and the paper ran with it almost verbatim. The Phoenixville piece [47] is about her being one candidate in the election. A 300-word brief, she figures in about 40% of the article. Not a big deal. The Berksmont piece [48] is 250-word brief about the reorganization of the board...o.k. so what, she's vice chair in a commission's typical annual round-robin selection for a rather useless formality of a post...that's all it says. I can take a piss longer than it takes to read that article. A handful of dubious local news pieces with superficial coverage doesn't make her notable. Per WP:RS - less-established news outlets are generally considered less reliable. further, being reported on in a local paper isn't "significant coverage" independent of the person. Most local papers write articles on short-term interest stories, and largely from press releases by whoever wants a little publicity. these are small-time papers, and less reliable than a big market outfit. per WP:NTEMP, WP:BLP1E "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." When she makes it to real newspapers with significant coverage (not some passing b.s.), or finds her way into a book, then she might be notable enough for an article. Right now, the local police blotter is likely more interesting than some article about her county commission meetings.--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion, but it seems to be just that, opinion. I don't believe that this deletion is based on Wikipedia guidelines, but rather your own opinion about what is notable.

Sorry dude, belitting my reasonable assessment of this insignificant local politician won't convince me of this person's notability. And I'm usually very inclusive--she doesn't pass muster.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has numerous sources covering her, and holds a powerful position in an important position in a well-populated (500,000k) and politically important county. Orser67 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable local politician. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... non-notable local politician. ColonelHenry nails it on the head. Onel5969 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local politician and a delete is a usual outcome per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Enos733 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irwin Linker[edit]

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

This person does not appear to be notable and I cannot find any other references to him. Due to the multiple issues with the article, I proposed it is deleted. FirstDrop87 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG miserably. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Income Resources[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia is not a directory — of services or anything else. As per long standing consensus, such pages do not belong here. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasoning. Safiel (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete as per nom. I PRODed this, but the prod was declined, with no reason stated. DES ^(talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment btw, my decline of prod was procedural, I was actually trying to open an AfD, but you beat me to it. Safiel (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not allow the prod to stand and see if it held, and avoid the need for this discussion? DES ^(talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was wondering why you declined a straight forward nomination (and the question by DES above). Anyway, thanks for informing me. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I do admire that someone cared enough to compile this list, I don't think that Wikipedia is an appropriate location for this. We're not a soapbox or place to promote anything, regardless of how noble or good the intentions are. I am a bit concerned that there are multiple people uploading this list onto various accounts, as I deleted a similar list at User:AACI's Low Income Resource as a promotional userpage. I'm going to open up an SPI, as I'm concerned that there might be a network of people spamming for the various LIR locations. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I do have to say that I personally view this as promotional in tone, as the wording in several sections of the article is blatantly promotional for the companies plus the nature of the list is to promote people using the services. (See phrases such as "Therefore, Hospice of the Valley ensures all families receive expert, quality, compassionate care and support, regardless of ability to pay." ) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the prod decline yesterday. I have recently dealt with some malformed AfD nominations and mistakenly thought that this was one. Safiel (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well intentioned but not appropriate per nominator. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 12:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Quiles[edit]

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

Notability concerns. I don't believe this individual passes WP:BIO or WP:MILNG. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 00:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Other than being an Army recipient of the Bronze Star, I'm not sure what makes this junior officer particularly significant or important. —C.Fred (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPEOPLE. ///EuroCarGT 01:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So is my page going to be deleted? Will my name stay on the Bronze Star page? Edwin Quiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.52.67 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quiles is not listed at the Bronze Star page, nor do I show where he has been at any time since this article was created. —C.Fred (talk) 03:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly referring to the Category:Recipients of the Bronze Star Medal. And no, it won't stay. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer with absolutely no notability whatsoever. Why on earth do people think it's acceptable to keep on creating these articles? It's rather sad that people in relatively responsible positions continue to apparently believe that Wikipedia exists as a place to display their CVs. It's an encyclopaedia, for crying out loud, not a networking or self-glorification site! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is consensus that the artices in the current state do not demonstrate ntability of the individuals involved and have to be deleted. The persons may very well be notable, and the articles can be recreated provided they satisfy the notability criteria.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Isak[edit]

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

These individuals do not appear to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Also included in this nomination:

Christopher Isak
David Maldow
Sean Wilder
Stephanie Watson
Hyoun Park

(Please feel free to add any similar articles to this nomination, in case I've missed any.) ‑Scottywong | babble _ 00:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full Support: Per nom. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as claim to fame comes from a "curated list" "influential people," which is hardly a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPEOPLE. ///EuroCarGT 01:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Even after looking at Isak's "About me" page, I can't figure out what exactly he does. I couldn't find any reliable sources for any of these people. Fails WP:BIO, and how. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Hyoun Park, I know all of these people. Whether any of us are famous enough to be in Wikipedia is up for debate and I'd be the first to agree that the current stub for my name (which I had no role in creating) is not up to snuff, but the people listed here are all experts in unified communications and enterprise telephony who are hired by enterprise companies and vendors to help with strategy and product development. Although we're famous in our own sphere, Wikipedia doesn't typically list even the most influential of industry analysts, which typically means that people researching enterprise technology topics on Wikipedia cannot find any listed experts on this site. I would actually argue that I'm better known for enterprise mobility as the first to quantify the costs of BYOD as a third-party, for my work with telepresence robots where I advised many of the key players in the market, and my work as a Big Data influencer on social media, but my work in telecom expense management, videoconferencing, and unified communications has also been significant over the last six years since I have about 50 primary published reports in those areas between my work at the Aberdeen Group and Nucleus Research. hyounpark (talk) 5:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McKayla Matthews[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, just nominations, No independent, reliably sourced content. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak delete - Just realized that WP:PORNBIO excludes "ensemble" awards, which her only win would be. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per OhNoitsJamie. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as her only award was for Best Sex Scene and PORNBIO states "Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration". Finnegas (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Fails GNG without substantial reliable source coverage. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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