Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 January	6 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Changes (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Tagged as unreferenced since 2008- only ref is self-published. TheLongTone (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Am also nominating the bands only (non charting, non refereneced) album.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of minutes searching found significant coverage from Allmusic (multiple), NPR (multiple), Daily Herald, Pitchfork, SPIN, Chicago Tribune, Paste, and Heeb. The lack of sources in the article is a reason for improvement not deletion. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Michig, Please show us these links that you claim were easy to find.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Didn't have time this morning, but here's some links: NPR: [1], [2], Allmusic: [3], [4], Pitchfork: [5], Daily Herald: [6], Heeb: [7], SPIN: [8], Chicago Tribune: [9], Paste: [10]. I suspect several more could be found with a more thorough search. --Michig (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say that most of those links serve very well to establish this band's non-notability. All they evidence is a PR push in 2006 which got a little bit of coverage. This is not notabity: its a pebble chucked into a pond in Chicago with a total lack of ripples. The others? Evidence that records exist: none that anybody actually listened to them.TheLongTone (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have established criteria for inclusion and one of the most widely accepted is significant coverage in reliable sources, which is clearly satisfied here. --Michig (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the sources listed above by User:Michig show that the band in question has received coverage in independent, reliable sources, thereby meeting WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Here are a couple more reviews of their work, in The Fader [11] and NME [12]. Gong show 20:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. significant coverage is what it says. have you read the NME review? half a dozen lines. (incidentally saying they are rubbish which is why nothing has been heard of them for the last seven years.TheLongTone (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A 158-word NME review is certainly no War and Peace, but it's more than a trivial (i.e., passing) mention and from a notable publication. At the least, I thought it might have some value in supplementing the rest of the material. If this was the only piece of coverage on the band I would agree that they are not notable. As it stands, even if the review did not exist, the band clears the notability bar given the other coverage presented. As for the band being "rubbish", there are plenty of examples of critically panned - but still notable - musicians, songs, films, video games, etc. Gong show 02:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like someone has a vendetta against the band. If a PR "push" was all it took to land reviews in Pitchfork and NME and Spin and the Chicago Tribune then these rags would be forced to publish hundreds of reviews of crappy basement bands every day. Full disclosure: I really like one song by the Changes, a band I found out about through... Pitchfork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.148.84.224 (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Changes (band) as meeting WP:GNG. Then merge Today Is Tonight into the The Changes (band) article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BAND and WP:GNG through independent coverage in reliable sources. — sparklism ^hey! 15:01, 7 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. GB fan 16:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XOOM Energy[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this company. Article added by banned paid editor, Wikifan115. The references are straight press releases, marked as such. Kept at the previous AfD because not enough interest was paid to it. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional.- tucoxn\^talk 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:CORP. lacks third party sources. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biomedical Semantics[edit]

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

It does not meet WP:N. Leoesb1032 (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indexed in Scopus and hence meeting WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randykitty's reasoning. --Mark viking (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Randykitty's reason; journal's articles also cited in many other academic journal articles. --Agyle (talk) 22:32, 6 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 Free-diving#History. Sandstein 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient divers[edit]

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

Flawed article, information has been merged into free diving. Title is also misleading, and subject matter is sparse. Noodleki (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Free diving. It makes better sense that way. Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's already merged. Should it be redirected there?Noodleki (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Free-diving #History. There's little point in having small, fragmented articles on individual facets of a topic when the main topic is still well below a size where it needs to be split. Having one good-sized article is much easier to maintain and more interesting for the reader than multiple scattered stubs. --RexxS (talk) 14:15, 8 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bojan Kosednar[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Into the Rift (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 21:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above and including a lack of references.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP and his one top tier fight is insufficient to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 04:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 22:21, 6 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. Passes WP:NMMA Guerillero | My Talk 04:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Alanis[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight. Into the Rift (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Into the Rift (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you take a look at the articles linked to here it appears he has fought for the WEC more than three times. This article needs work but he does pass WP:NMMA.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I sourced his career record for the article and he definitely meets WP:NMMA with 6 WEC fights. Papaursa (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus indicates that the subject of this article does not pass the WP:GNG Guerillero | My Talk 04:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hade Vansen[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestler. He had a short career before he retired. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. McPhail (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - his career before WWE has no sources at all. His career in WWE... it's not even WWE... he never made it past Florida Championship Wrestling, the developmental territory / training ground of WWE. Definitely ever made it to a major pro wrestling promotion. Overall, he seems too minor for notability. Starship.paint (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has notability from those promos that aired on SmackDown back in 2008. Sure, they never led to anything, but he did get exposure there. --GeicoHen (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems there was one promo. On one of the lowest-rated SmackDowns of the year. Probably didn't last a minute. And like you say, led to absolutely nothing. It's like being in a commercial, which only ran once. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article fails to establish notability. Sources used in the article either fail WP:SRC or don't even mention him at all. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does seem to be notable on some forums for his blink-or-you'll-miss-it SmackDown promo. I think Are You Serious? even joked that he would feud with The Undertaker. However, all of that is rather irrelevant in terms of wiki policy, as I don't see this passing WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 18:34, 13 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Driscoll[edit]

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

No notable pro wrestler. He had a short career before he retired. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:53, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. McPhail (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERNOM. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We had a discussion many months back, and the decision was to keep. --GeicoHen (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I explained. Decision was keep because Feedback joined 4 articles in one AfD. However, the articles were too diferent. Administrators decided to keep the articles because the AfD was wrong, not the notability. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think only one of the sources "Well Magazine" can be considered anything near a reliable source. As a wrestler whose most notable move was to wrestle for WWE's developmental territory / "training leagues", which he never made it out of, I think overall his career is not notable. It's not only short, but he never made it to the big leagues. United Wrestling Association doesn't even have an article. Starship.paint (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flash in the pan, and not even a big pan. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.LM2000 (talk) 18:37, 13 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. Does not pass WP:NACTOR, right now. Might be notable in the future. Guerillero | My Talk 04:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Ting[edit]

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

The main reason for nomination is that this actor have accomplished nothing in order to meet WP:ENT. Article is unsourced other than of that of his only straight to YouTube film project that never gained any serious notability for anybody to take notice. Donnie Park (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Derek Ting is a young director/producer/actor who is working hard establishing himself in an extremely competitive industry. His continued inclusion in Wikipedia is strongly suggested as he is one of the only, if not the only, Asian-American male who has taken on the lead role in directing, producing, or acting in a movie released to an American audience. This is a very unique and innovative contribution in the field of entertainment. There are other more famous Asian males in American cinema, but most are not Asian-American and if they are, they do not lead in their movies. Most Asian-American males play supporting roles in American movies. Derek Ting's achievements are nothing short of impressive. The actor and his body of work is sourced. They can be found on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes. His movie, $upercapitalist, was not released solely as a YouTube film project, although it is available for rental or purchase from YouTube as part of its simultaneous day and date release strategy. As noted in the article, his movie was released to cinemas, cable TV, and on multiple major streaming websites. The movie can be found not only on YouTube, but also Apple and Hulu, among others. If those kinds of direct links are permitted on Wikipedia, they can be included. His movie was featured on major news outlets, such as NY Times, BBC World, Forbes, NBC News, CNBC News, The Examiner, and CCTV, as well as being an official selection in the Asian American International Film Festival. Many of those featured news stories can be quickly accessed from the movie's website. Further, please note that in his movie, he has some major stars play supporting roles. These stars include Linus Roache, Kenneth Tsang, Richard Ng, and Kathy Uyen, among others. To be able to get the support of stars in a supporting manner is significant. He is working on his next film, Incidental, which is currently targeting a release in 2014. As a result of his inspiring achievements thus far, he has a sort of cult following already. How should such a statement be supported in Wikipedia? Can links to respective social media accounts be included? Please note that the article has been updated to include his upcoming movie. Worldofinfo (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of your rationale is going to persuade me to otherwise why this article is going to stay other than that for the film as you only given the reason why only your film project can stay, not this subject. As for Mr. Ting being notable, let me say this, wow, he is the next Barkhad Abdi, just after one film he has shown a lot of promise to the industry, please do let me know if like Mr. Abdi, he gets nominated for an Oscar. Donnie Park (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. Content reads like a promotion. FazFinder 11:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seem to be too soon for an article given the lack of coverage and lack in body of work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 10 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Republic of Srpska Football Day[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. 23 editor (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:EVENT (also have no idea where this takes place, poor article)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable event involving only youth national teams. All friendly matches played appear to be unofficial as well. Fenix down (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There is no indication that this article meet the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:31, 12 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Dunn (businessman)[edit]

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

Nomination not done properly due to a conflict with a previous deleted article with the same name. Anyways the reason for deletion was "No indication of significance" by User ItsallEasy seen here. I remain Neutral JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It fails WP:GNG--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 22:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless soembody finds and adds more information. There is a WSJ article about his work, but we need more significant coverage. His name is common enough that online searches are prolematic. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 9 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. Guerillero | My Talk 04:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schaffer's mill[edit]

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

Non-notable privately owned location. I checked Google books and while I found some brief mentions of Schaffer and his mills (perhaps as many as three mills), I do not see more than passing mentions other than guidebook type entries. The only Google news archive story was a story about the bones of a man eaten by coyotes in 1890 whose bones were found near one of the mills. Subsequently one of the three the mills was remodeled into a resort/retail building which shows in a couple of directories in books, but again, no notability other than that they exist. Google scholar turns up one reference but again there is no apparent notability. It appears the page was created to advertise the current retail use of the old mills. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has no notability whatsoever. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's thorough research. I suppose it could be redirected to HGTV Dream Home or to Truckee, California but I prefer the delete option. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 07:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zapote Line (Philippines)[edit]

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

Article has one reference and fails WP:N. Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't think the article entirely fails WP:N, although its not the most notable thing in the world. If someone could dig up some more information that would be great. United States Man (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "One reference" currently existing in the article does not equal non-notability, it just means there's one reference there. In fact that reference is very substantial.[13] There are also other less substantial ones. [14][15] --Oakshade (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- If the reference is so substantial, then why is the article so short? Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having stubs. Wikipedia has no deadline. Sometimes articles take years and perhaps decades to grow. I created the article for the actress Valérie Bonneton. Why is that still so short? I don't know. I created it with the expectation people more interested in the topic will add to it. I know that will happen in time, but I have no time limit. This is the same with millions of valid stubs on WP. --Oakshade (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Military history of this type is likely to have good paper sources.--Charles (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it is fixed and sourced, I am fine with a keep. Bearian (talk) 18:19, 9 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). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kernaghan[edit]

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

Almost no information and is not verified with but one reference. Leoesb1032 (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~No assertion of notability on the page Speedy Delete - WP:A7~~ Neonchameleon (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Twelve gold & two platinum albums seems like a claim of notability, & I found this [16] to back it up. The fact that an article is poor is no reason to delete it.TheLongTone (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australian country music isn't that well covered online, but hall of fame members are notable. WP: BEFORE exists for articles like this.The-Pope (talk) 01:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The gold records satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable country & western artist in his own right. Dan arndt (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pretty clear notability and a very good example of why one should conduct at least a cursory search for sources before calling for A7. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - definitely notable now. And I disagree with the claim that you should search before calling for A7. Before nominating something for AfD, yes. But A7 is about what is actually in the article. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's enough there to meet notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 04:00, 7 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Fix[edit]

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

Promotional article on non-notable "media personality" Every reference here is either non substantial or pure PR. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete although I have mixed views about this:
- The cited mainstream sources USAA, ABC news, and Fox Business, while not providing coverage of this person as required by WP:BIO, seem to rely on this person as an expert, and devote a fair amount of space referring to her safety recommendations. Does that count as 'significant coverage' of the subject?
- We also have the guideline that says you aren't notable just because you're the daughter of someone who is notable. I'm not seeing that she has achieved notability in her own right other than through being the daughter of a race car driver.
- On the other hand, there's User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable although that shouldn't guide the decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 01:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, seems to be in demand as an expert/dial-a-quote on the topic of driving safety for young people, but there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of her as a person. Does not meet WP:BIO in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Lauren Fix. Notability is borderline; I agree with the weak delete as a separate article. Shelby Fix is already mentioned in the Lauren Fix article. A couple of paragraphs there would be appropriate since most of the ref's of this article refer to Shelby Fix as Lauren's daughter. "the Teen Car Coach®". My WP:CRYSTAL says Shelby Fit is no longer a teenager and this article can never grow unless she establishs her own notability. If she does, a separate article may become justified. She has enough media and advertising exposure to merit a mention in her mother's article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) Join WER 23:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gave it a good bushwhacking. If that helps! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lauren Fix. She doesn't appear to show any notability independent of her mother. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is promotional and it looks like it might have been written by a paid editor. After the bushwhacking, there isn't much worth keeping.- tucoxn\^talk 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional issues, notability not yet established.LM2000 (talk) 04:02, 7 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. Passes Wikipedia:ORGDEPTH Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Food Science and Technology[edit]

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As Itsalleasy said, there is no significance. There are also no outside sources; only the company's website itself. United States Man (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have sufficient significance as a recognized professional body. --Michig (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I have added a couple of references though more are really needed to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH. However I can see their membership listed in UK legislation as a food examiner qualification, its presidency listed among the attributes of a member of the General Advisory Committee on Science, and articles such as this from the Guardian treat it as a key industry body on a par with the CBI, which is tending towards evidence. AllyD (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Professional associations in major countries are generally notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a professional association concerned with accrediting practitioners and maintaining standards. Even if small, it should be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:00, 5 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 Mexican R'n'B. Guerillero | My Talk 05:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Machine (song)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NSONG or WP:GNG. I redirected this song to its album (that way if reliable sources to support notability were put forward, it could be reverted and thus easily re-created. In the meantime, it would be a potentially useful redirect.) My change to redirect was reverted, with the message that my edit was 'vandalism'. This might be worth a redirect to the album, but not to be an article. Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I agree to a redirect but don't know why you brought it here instead of discussing it on the talk page with the other user (who just magically appeared after six years). United States Man (talk) 17:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It's pointless to have this stub as a free-standing article--even if there were more material, it's doubtful that independent notability could be demonstrated. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Magically" appeared? - nope, I logged on. Nothing remarkable or magic about that. There is VERY little information about The Stairs, and only a few recordings, of which all are notable. This is a page documenting a recording released by the band's label in the US, and therefore notable. The fact that the songs on this recroding (a stand alone cd, the photo of which was deleted even though I had attributed copyright correctly at the time) also appear on an album has nothing to do with the notability of this article. How is "notable" defined anyway? Who gets to say what might or might not be notable? And to whom? Sa cooke (talk) 00:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant notability for songs and singles is here.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear: This recording is NOT a song or single, therefore the guidelines you pointed to do not apply. The recording is a promotional release by the band's US label, and therefore notable in context. Just because it is not notable to you has nothing to do with it's notability generally. Sa cooke (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article title says "song" and the lead sentence says "single", but if you think instead that the recordings guideline should apply, then I would encourage you to provide evidence of this promotional release's notability. The article should also be built up more, else--notable or not--it should be folded into the main album page as a convenience to the reader.--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobbes Goodyear: If you check the history, I did not call it a song originally - it was edited by someone to read that. I do concede that an argument could be made for folding the information the page should contain into the album, but I suspect there is a bit more to add about the release. The Stairs only visited the States once, and the release was to promote the small tour. The release is notable because The Stairs released so little material that any release is important. It may not seem that way to you, but others (including myself) find that significant. A google search will show the importance the band has, and the influence the band has had on other bands from the area. Sa cooke (talk) 02:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No independent sources, no article. --Randykitty (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't even pass general notability requirement. Notablity is not inherited. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO Guerillero | My Talk 05:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Addams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails updated version of WP:PORNBIO. Moreover as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz previously argued "Fails the GNG, no nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits, while the pop-culture namedrops are trivial, not the necessary substantive coverage. Just another porn performer BLP without reliably sourced biographical content". Finnegas (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as well as per my analysis in the previous AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last deletion discussion was too recent and nothing has changed since then. Changing a guideline does not automatically make this individual any less notable. She still passes the "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" criteria in PORNBIO for her work in the MILF genre and her nominations continue to be evidence of that. The "In popular culture" section of her article shows that she "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", also PORNBIO criteria. Not to mention that she also passes WP:ANYBIO, considering that fact that nominations haven't been removed from it and last time I checked, it hasn't been renamed to WP:ANYBIOEXCEPTFORPORNSTARS. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unique contributions to porn need acknowledgement by reliable or at least semi-reliable (like AVN) sources. I don't see that in the article and I can't find it in independent searches. A four-sentence mention in Complex magazine and a pop culture name drop fall short of the "featured" in multiple mainstream media standard. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not pass the general notability guideline, as noted by others. In the interests of improving the encyclopedia, the multi-nomination aspect of wp:pornbio is deprecated as far as I am concerned. Tarc (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the new consensus guideline at WP:PORNBIO. Fails GNG without substantial reliable source coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is correct that the article lacks reliably sourced biographical content. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One of many porn star bios and other articles related to the porn industry that fails the general notability guidelines. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a GNG failure. Born in Gibraltar — get a DYK up on the mainpage quick!!! Carrite (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails GNG. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:41, 14 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Oaks, Inverloch[edit]

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

Removed PROD. This is original research and therefore cannot be an article. Delete per WP:NOR. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 03:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found evidence of where people seem to call this area by that name ([17]) but I can't find anything to show that it's an official name. If it was, then it might be a different story. It's just that I can't find anything to really show that this is an official name. If someone wanted to userfy this then I wouldn't have a huge issue. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added some sources (there's not much I could find) and made some tweaks. Maybe a trimmed down version (without the original research) could be merged into an associated article? Such as the 'Attractions' section of the Bunurong Marine National Park? AnonNep (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Maps isn't sure where it is (it gave me two options). Meaning probably not an official place name - especially as I ran out of ghits in two pages. Delete Neonchameleon (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bunurong Marine National Park. With the added refs, I'm satisfied that it's a real place known as "The Oaks" or "The Oaks Beach", but it's better suited to the nearby park. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:39, 5 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 Deleted via CSD. Speedy deleted as A11 (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haiku-Depot[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-existent software that may exist some day. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, WP:GNG, and WP:CRYSTAL. - Mr X 15:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per MrX. Jarkeld (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The user is still working on it, if they don't fix it up in the next 48 hours then delete. The user is in a Google programme for kids to learn about open source software. HaikuDepot is a major part of the Haiku (operating_system). Dlpkbr (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure advertizing. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:34, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2010 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 4A Championship[edit]

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

I am quite new to editing Wikipedia, but I have spent some time reading various talk pages. I don't believe this topic is notable enough to deserve a page, so I am interested to see the opinions of more experienced editors. Athomeinkobe (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing about a typical high school football game that is notable. Cannot find anything that makes this specific game notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to the enthusiastic article creators credit, it is a state championship tournament (not just another high school game) and it is nicely done. It looks great! But sadly, it does not pass the muster of notability needed for inclusion in this particular online encyclopedia. High school sporting events are rarely notable and this does not appear to be an exception. I suggest that they try another wiki where their efforts will be a much better fit.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Author should start a wiki on Wikia.com for the topics. There's also 2011 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 4A Championship 2012 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 4A Championship 2013 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 4A Championship 2007 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 6A Championship 2008 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 6A Championship 2009 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 6A Championship 2010 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 6A Championship 2011 KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron 6A Championship which all should be deleted with this. The article KHSAA Commonwealth Gridiron Bowl, however, seems keepable. LionMans Account (talk) 18:24, 7 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Seaton[edit]

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

I put everything I could find (all notability links, checking all links using variations of her names, HighBeam, British National Archives, British artists site, Royal Academy, etc.) into the article in an attempt to save it, but the article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTISTS CaroleHenson (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there are claims she was a talented painter but absolutely nothing to back this up. Occasionally these sort of articles are tributes written by a relative, maybe it is the case in this example. It's true that the achievements of women artists are often dismissed by the establishment, but unfortunately for Seaton there isn't even a whiff of a record about her. 'Weak' delete because there's always a chance there is some offline, pre internet material that may surface. Sionk (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The WP:ARTIST notability criteria are rather high and exceed the normal round of group exhibitions and sporadic auction sales, which is all I am finding in this case. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonia Gerstacker[edit]

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

This article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTISTS

There are no published news articles on google news or HighBeam. There's one viable (not WP source info) book and that's already used in the article. There's also nothing in JSTOR or scholar. After weeding out facebook, linkedin, ebay, and other common non-reliables for a regular google search, I found one article about an exhibit and added it to the article.
The article had a lot of uncited information, perhaps WP:Original research or Original thought. See Talk:Antonia Gerstacker for a discussion of information that had been in the article to be resolved.

The only potential source information are discussed there: 1) two local cable interviews, 2) a music video where her murals may be seen, but are not credited within the music video itself, and 3) two sources we're unable to verify that have information that doesn't seem as if it would resolve notability issues.

It seems that she's known within the Miami area. I hope that her career progresses more broadly so that she makes the press, meets WP notability guidelines, and is able to be added later.CaroleHenson (talk) 12:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - she's described as "noted" in a Miami Beach Illustrated Travel guide, but that's the best I could find. Because the article is largely written by the subject, it sets off all sorts of alarm bells for me. And I would have expected that if there were any offline, pre internet sources, the subject would know about them. She's made an impression on her local area but not a sufficient impact for WP:GNG yet. Sionk (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for catching the "noted" - I updated the article accordingly.--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail both guidelines based on my research, too. So...many....self-published web-published Wikipedia books.... SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE ARTICLE*User contribution being added in neutral point of view and notability issues and in good faith in efforts to save the Antonia Gerstacker article from deletion.(janeswider (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

~~(Janeswider (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC))~~ _{Strike !vote from confirmed sock account.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)}[reply]

I would like to note that this article is causing a great deal of distress to the subject. I considered an WP:IAR deletion as this discussion has been open for 5 days and appears to be heading towards a delete outcome. As the article creator (and BLP subject of the article) has expressed their request to have the article deleted both here and off-wiki, I would certainly support the deletion of the article. Notability is tenuous at best and we have a policy to do no harm.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, it should be finished as quickly as possible. Author has not done herself any favours, but it may be understandable because she has been extremely ill so has already been through plenty of distress. Sionk (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing enough coverage in notable third-party sources for WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. I would also recommend salting the article; the subject has a history of socking and could potentially remake it ProtossPylon 02:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing good sources to establish notability 94.194.24.46 (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the original author per this.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with the delete, Letting the subject of an article determine whether they want an article about them exist is really bad in my opinion. I would *not* consider the opinion of the subject at all. CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:56, 12 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 Louis J. Posner. There seems to be a general agreement amoung the uninvolved editors that this does no pass the notability guidelines for inclusion. There also seems to be an agreement for a redirect from this location to Louis J. Posner, the main organizer of the event. Guerillero | My Talk 05:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

VoterMarch[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. 90+% of the "coverage" of this group came between Jan. 10 and 21, 2001, consisted of a few sentences usually identifying and providing context to the source of a quote, and were mostly reprints of or generally based on the same AP wire piece that ran in that period. This isn't substantial coverage in reliable sources, and with the AP wire issue, there are questions about intellectual independence. The fact that so much of this coverage stems from the January 2001 protest also tees up a WP:ONEEVENT issue.

The sources in the article are not exceptions. Either they fit the concern above, are inconsequential mentions, or are simply unreliable. Searching LexisNexis for caps(singular(voter)) pre/1 caps(singular(march)) brings up fewer than 30 hits, including several false positives. One article is entirely about Les Souci, a few are about Lou Posner's 2008 arrest and conviction, and almost everything else is subject to the concerns mentioned above. The same happens with a search for "VoterMarch".

In short, we have here an organization that got a few trivial mentions in the press because people got quoted and identified as affiliated with the group, where all that coverage stemmed from the same protest in early 2001 that was attended by many, many other organizations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect Though a well-crafted work product designed to give a greater-than-justified air of notability, the article lacks significant coverage. There are lots of cites, so at first blush, it looks notable. However,
- Archives-- self pubbed in deeper context of inaugral protests
- Montgomery and Santana-- short Posner quote
- BBC-- breif mention in deeper context of inaugaral protests
- Couloumbis-- brief Rogers quote in deeper context of inaugaral protests
- Daily News-- brief Rogers quote in deeper context of inaugaral protests
- Tuscaloosa News-- brief Rogers quote in deeper context of inaugaral protests
- CNN brief mention in deeper context of inaugaral protests
- NYTimes review of movie-- no mention of subject in deeper context of inaugaral protests
- ITVS-- no mention of subject in deeper context of inaugaral protests

Clearly, the subject had a role in the Protests against President Bush fils, so while not notable enough for an article, there should be a redirect to an article about the protests (could not find one) or to First_inauguration_of_George_W._Bush#Controversy. Dloh cierekim 14:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comments
Comment Agreed, a separate article on the January 20, 2001 Counter-Inaugural Protests is also needed. See 2005 article on January_20,_2005_counter-inaugural_protest.108.176.141.200 (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Dlohcierekim above. Lots of passing mentions, nothing in depth, no persistence in coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comments

*Keep or redirect Zack Exley, former Chief Revenue Officer of the Wikipedia Foundation, was the founder of Counter Coup and was instrumental to the formation of Voter March, and he should be included in the VoterMarch article. See, Exley, Zack, "Organizing Online" [18] Organizing Online, How a former union organizer accidentally sparked a nationwide election protest movement, all via the Internet. Mother Jones — Dec. 9, 2000; See, We Will Not Get Over It, [19], by Jackson K. and Sharon M. Thoreau, Acknowledgments, p. 3: "We particularly thank ...Lou Posner of Voter March...Zack Exley of Counter Coup"170.170.59.139 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The book, We Will Not Get Over It:Restoring a Legitimate White House, was published as an eBook by BookLocker. http://booklocker.com/books/333.html This is an important part of U.S. history that should not be swept under the rug.108.176.141.200 (talk) 11:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline Dloh cierekim 20:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Due to a Conflict of Interest with the article subject, I am not voting or offering my opinion as to keep, delete, redirect, or merge, but offer some comments.

Voter March's initial event was in organizing the Counter-Inaugural Protest on January 20, 2001 in response to the 2000 Presidential election which was very controversial and contentious. After the 2000 Presidential election controversy, grassroots groups sprung up throughout the nation. Voter March was the umbrella grassroots group that organized hundreds of smaller groups throughout the nation to a large demonstration in Dupont Circle in Washington, DC. Voter March, International Action Center, National Organization of Women and National Action Network (Al Sharpton) were the main protest groups at the 2001 Presidential inauguration.

Following the Counter-Inaugural Protest, Voter March engaged in other events, including the Voter Rights March on May 19, 2001 in Washington DC and San Francisco, and a series of speaking and book tours for BBC reporter and author Greg Palast and former prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi. Subsequently, Voter March was involved in the Anti-Iraq War movement, the 2004 Stolen Election campaign and the 2012 Tax Wall Street campaign.

During 2001 and 2002, there were a large number of references to articles on Voter March. However, most of these articles have since been archived and are very difficult to retrieve.

References to Voter March from secondary sources, are as follows:

Counter-Inaugural Protests (Jan. 20, 2001)

- Protesters line inaugural parade route, CNN.com, AllPolitics.com, January 20, 2001

[20]

"Although we represent different constituencies we are finding that we share a number of common concerns, especially outrage about the trampling of the electoral process and the disenfranchisement of voters," said Les Souci, an organizer of Voter March, which wants a Voters' Bill of Rights and campaign finance reform.

- The Washington Post reported further that: "Other activists are planning a Voters March to call for election reform and the abolishment of the electoral college. "Our nation has been traumatized by what has happened in this election," said Louis Posner, a New York attorney leading the effort."

Inaugural Protests Take Shape Published on Thursday, December 21, 2000 in the Washington Post, by David Montgomery and Arthur Santana, Common Dreams

- With political parties, special interests and labor unions spending large sums to organize and communicate over the Internet, it is not surprising that it has become the principal tool for strategic communication and mobilization of protest activism. Ideas are presented in affinity chat rooms until there are enough activists to start an email list. Soon a Webpage appears and the organization is under way. Voter March also claims to have been formed in this way. Lou Posner, a founding member of the group, tells Insight it arose spontaneously on the Web a week after Election Day.

"We were formed as a grass-roots organization in response to election irregularities and problems," says Posner. Voter March played a key role in organizing the main protest rally on Inauguration Day, acting as an umbrella organization for hundreds of smaller groups from across the country. They started at 10 a.m. with a rally at Dupont Circle in Northwest Washington before heading through the city on a three-mile march. Posner claimed his group is more mainstream than many of the others in his penumbra, but assured in the days leading up to the inauguration that marchers would be peaceful. "We're taking a pretty strong position that everything we're going to do is going to be legal and lawful," Posner told Insight...This sort of thing may help explain why groups such as Voter March made such an effort to distance themselves from the more experienced troupes of protesters. "Our group does not represent the `professional' protesters that you saw at the World Trade Organization [and] World Bank [meetings] and Republican convention," Posner tells Insight." [21]

- BBC reported "There are a lot of moderate-thinking Americans out there wondering how we got to this point - not only why Bush is president, but why his cabinet nominations are so far to the right," said Bob Rogers of the group Voter March. Voter March is part of a coalition of groups, including the National Organization of Women and the National Action Network, that have called for Saturday to be a non-violent 'Day of Resistance' to the presidency of Mr Bush."

Bush: Who's Protesting and Why, BBC News, January 20, 2001

- The Philadelphia Inquirer reported "Bush may be president, but I know that when he goes to sit in the Oval Office for the first time, he's going to look out the window, and see and hear us," said Bob Rogers, a founder and organizer of yesterday's Voter March, a nonpartisan group protesting voter disenfranchisement and championing reforms to the Electoral College. "I don't want to personalize this," Rogers said of Bush. "I'm not going to scream 'Hail to the thief,' as others may do. But I will say, 'Respect the presidency,' because during this election, it was not respected." Inauguration Protests Largest Since Nixon in 1973 Published on Sunday, January 21, 2001 in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Common Dreams, by Angela Couloumbis.

- The Associated Press reported "Bob Rogers one of the organizers of the "Voter March" said the fact that Bush captured the White House even though Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes guarantied busloads of demonstrators. "These are moderate working people, motivated by anger, embarrassment, that kind of sentiment," he said. "They're wondering we can put a man on the moon and why can't we count the vote?"

Thousands Take to Street to Protest, Daily News, Bowling Green, AP, Jan. 2001. Inauguration Protests Largest Since Nixon, The Victoria Advocate, January 21, 2001. Thousands Take to Street in Protest of Inauguration, The Southeast Missourian, January 21, 2001. Gore Returns to Private Life, The Tuscaloosa News, AP, January 21, 2001.

- Thousands Protest Bush’s Inauguration, Salon Magazine, Jan. 20, 2001 @ [22]

"Others who had marched with filmmaker and celebrity Nader endorser Michael Moore from the city’s Dupont Circle neighborhood. The group was ultimately allowed to proceed down to the parade route, and a crisis was averted."

- Protesters scuffle with police along inaugural route, USA Today, Jan. 20, 2001, at [23]

Though protesters had many disparate causes, most said they were motivated by the Florida election controversy.

Bob Rogers, one of the organizers of the "Voter March," said the fact that Bush captured the White House even though Al Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 guaranteed busloads of demonstrators.

"These are moderate, working people, motivated by anger, embarrassment, that kind of sentiment," he said. "They're wondering, 'We put a man on the moon, why can't we count the vote?"'

- Democrats.com, David Lytel Speech at Voter March rally [24]

Voter Rights March (May 19, 2001)

- CNN reported "Election reform advocates planned to rally in Washington, D.C., and San Francisco, California, to push for changes in the nation's voting system and a "full investigation" of the 2000 presidential election

Saturday's demonstrations are organized by Voter March, the same group that brought thousands to Washington to protest Bush's inauguration in January. District police said at the time that the size of the demonstration rivaled those held at the Nixon inaugural in 1973. Voter March founder Louis Posner said that he expected a diverse crowd at Saturday's rally -- "male, female, old, young, black, white, many of the 'first-time' protesters," he said. Voter March seeks a reform of the election process—including possibly scrapping the Electoral College system that allowed Bush to prevail. "The indignation over the Supreme Court's highly partisan decision cuts across all social lines," Posner said. "Voter March continues to grow as more and more people commit their energies to ensuring that the rights of voters can never again be trampled."

Voters Rally for Electoral Reform, CNN Politics, May 19, 2001.

- The Democrat Underground reported: "The Voter Rights March to Restore Democracy had several specific purposes behind its inception: to bring attention to the fact that the November election was a catastrophe and that election reform is a moral American imperative, to point out that some 180,000 votes have yet to be recounted in Florida despite a requirement for same inked into the books of the Sunshine State's laws, to cast a glaring light upon the scurrilous actions taken by the United States Supreme Court on December 13, 2000.... We heard from Lou Posner, one of the central organizers of the march, who looked like a blue-suited roadie for Crosby, Stills & Nash, but had the eyes of an assassin with his mark in the gunsight. We heard from Bob Kuntz of OralMajorityOnline.com, who declared his candidacy for the governorship of Florida and delineated all the reasons why Jeb Bush had to go. We heard from a woman who had been an observer during the recount, and she bore witness to the mob action and calumny that motivated this march...Soon enough, the moment arrived. The signs and banners were hoisted, and the crowd formed into a long column as we began our march to the Capitol steps. I took a spot at the vanguard, just behind the main Voters Rights March banner and next to an elderly group bearing a loud sign that read, "WWII Veterans Against Bush." An older woman with a bullhorn became the chant leader; she looked and sounded like a union organizer with many marches under her belt. In front of us all, a man bore a huge American flag, and another man made sure that none of us marched in front of it. The flag was to be first."

A Report form the Voter Rights March M19 Democratic Underground, May 22, 2001, by William Rivers Pitt.

- Footage from Louis Posner's speech, VoterMarch Archives: [25] Speech of Lou Posner, founder and chair of Voter March at the Voter Rights March to Restore Democracy]. at the West Capitol steps was seen on the political documentary film, Florida Fights Back: Resisting the Stolen Election.

- BushWatch, Jerry Politex Speech at Voter March [26]

- Citizens for a Legitimate Government, Press Release on Voter March [27]

Antonin Scalia Protests (2001)

- On Sep. 10, 2001, Voter March organized a protest against Justice Antonin Scalia at the Hofstra University Ethics Conference.[28]| VOTER MARCH PROTESTS SCALIA AT HOFSTRA U. ETHICS CONFERENCE, Sep. 10, 2001.

Voter March Speaking Tours (2001-2002)

- On March 10, 2001, Louis Posner, the founder of VoterMarch, was a plenary speaker at the "Grassroots Use of the Internet" conference at Yale University.Yale University, Conference: Grassroots use of the Internet, March 10, 2001

- In his book review, Louis Posner writes of the The Betrayal of America, [29] “The Betrayal of America”, Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi accuses the Supreme Court's conservative majority of criminal conduct bordering on treason, by Charles Taylor, Salon, July 4, 2001.

"With his powerful, brilliant, and courageous expose of crime by the highest court in the land Vincent Bugliosi takes his place in the pantheon of patriots who have stood up and spoken out against injustice." Vincent Bugliosi's New Book Blows the Lid Off the Illegal Usurpation of the White House, The Betrayal of America, American Politics Journal, May 6, 2001

Protests Against the Iraq War (2002 TO 2003)

- On September 12, 2002, VoterMarch organized the first Anti-War protest in the United States against President Bush and his Administration's plans to wage war against Iraq. While U.S. President George W. Bush spoke to the United Nations General Assembly, outside the United Nations building, over 1,000 people attended a protest organized by VoterMarch. Speakers included VoterMarch founder and national chairperson Louis Posner, singer songwriter Patti Smith, former Students for a Democratic Society President, professor Todd Gitlin, and author/professor Mark Crispin Miller [30] VoterMarch Archives: Protest of Bush Speaking at UN ]

Protest Bush Speaking at United Nations | What Really Happened.

2004 Presidential Election Controversy

- During the 2004 presidential election, VoterMarch protested against irregularities in voting and in the use of suspect computerized voting systems and machines.Stolen Election 2004 Blog

Tax Wall Street (2012)

- VoterMarch has continued its voter rights campaigns in 2012 with the Tax Wall Street educational blog and in joining Greg Palast's Billionaires and Ballot Bandits Action Groups.

Images:

There is also a large image gallery for Voter March at Wikimedia Commons at [31] which includes a picture of U.S. Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi speaking at the San Francisco Voter March event on May 19, 2001, at VoterMarch (talk) 10:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it per nominator! — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartUM (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above comment is not backed up by any independent reasoning and should be disregarded.108.176.141.200 (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOTABLE. And the comment made by 108.176.141.200 is baseless, and no one should pay attention to him, sorry, her! 166.205.50.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet comments

Comment The Votermarch article represents an important part of U.S. History in which a number of people and groups were involved including Zack Exley of the Wikipedia Foundation. Rather than trying to destroy the VoterMarch Article, why don't you do something constructive and write articles about the other groups that were involved? Wikipedia is a not-for-profit organization that claims to be a website for everyone to write and edit.170.170.59.139 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has also been a lot of "bad faith" editing in this Article by JohninDC and others who deleted a substantial amount of content, references and citations.170.170.59.139 (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Then, after the Article is made weaker it gets nominated for deletion.[reply]

There were a lot of people involved in Voter March and deleting the Article would be a slap in the face to Zack Exley, Nancy Pelosi, Vincent Bugliosi and Greg Palast. Know who these people are before you act capriciously.108.176.141.200 (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Louis Posner, which may merit its own AfD; but if it is kept, that's where any record of VM should go. – SJ + 02:04, 11 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 Perhaps a lame attempt at humor.. older ≠ wiser 12:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States[edit]

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

Liberalufp (talk) 11:52, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Icon[edit]

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

Due to lack of third-party sources, this should be deleted and merged with YOMYOMF#Content, which does appear to be notable.

Notes are on this revision

Sources 1, 4, 6, 7 and 8 are all primary sources from the subject themselves.
Source 2 LA times is a single sentence mention.
Source 8 is from a tubefilter, which we know is a promotional web blog

The other articles Internet Icon (season 1) & Internet Icon (season 2) also give an identical picture of primary sources and several promotional web blogs.--Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Otterathome (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added some more references (and will add any more that I can when I get home from school in about 13-14 hours). Also you claim that "we know" that TF is a promotional web blog as if there was a massive consensus agreeing with that claim in that discussion. While evidence is leaning towards that it in fact one, there was only one other person who replied to that post, and they just said that it's bad when an article relies too heavily on any source, not just TF. I'd also rather not blindly agree with his claim "it looks like video blog site and is probably not a particularly good source." if he admits to only glancing at it (but at first glace) Like I said though, any problem with TF has been resolved; I added new references from different websites including GigaOM and Slate, and will continue to do so at a later time today. Soulbust (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that are not digital blogs?--Otterathome (talk) 22:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 23:08, 9 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. G3 Hoax — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siam Victoria International School[edit]

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

Unverifiable. Zero Google results outside of Wikipedia. Not existent in the Office of the Private Education Commission's official list of international schools in Bangkok. Probably a hoax. Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content appears to have been self-plagiarised from Niva International School. Tagging for speedy. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. with no prejudice against future nominations Guerillero | My Talk 05:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucibel[edit]

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

Illegal content, per 16 C.F.R. § 255 of the US Code.

The FTC stated (in March 2013) that the Guides

"apply to “any advertising message . . . that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser . . . .” ⁹ The Guides refer to advertising without limiting the media in which it is disseminated.:⁹ 16 C.F.R. § 255.0(b)."

So, this Wikipedia article is an advertisement. My reading of the Guides is that the FTC indicates that a paid editor would be considered an endorser and liable for any false statements she made on wikipedia. Furthermore, the seller is also liable for misrepresentations made through the endorsement. (See Examples 3 and 5 on page 4 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.)

Most importantly, per § 255.5, (page 10): The paid position of the editor must be fully disclosed, because it might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement (i.e., the connection is not reasonably expected by the audience), so such CoI disclosure in the article as long as it contains such advertising is a legal requirement, but there is no such disclosure - there is no disclosure of compensation. (See Examples 7, 8, and 9 on page 12 at http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf.) Elvey (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So, what is your rationale for nominating this article? Too promotional? I'm not seeing any evidence that the article creator is a paid editor, either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is as stated, that this is undisclosed advertising. The reader does not know that this is an advertorial, commissioned by the subject. Translating this into Wikipedia-speak, I would suggest that even if the article is otherwise acceptable, it needs to be deleted under WP:IAR, which clearly applies to situations like this, in which improving Wikipedia requires ignoring our absurdly weak COI rules, which permit subjects to pay for people to create articles. Coretheapple (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on this being a commissioned, paid article commissioned by the subject. Coretheapple (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that EagerToddler39 (talk · contribs) is a paid editor, because I don't see any evidence of that, nor do I see any discussion topics regarding any suspicion of this editor. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed here and here and here, apart from the talk page post in the article. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, where is the evidence that EagerToddler39 (talk · contribs) is a paid editor? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - This AFD is apparently an attempt to force policy discussion, rather than discuss the suitability of the article for WP. If the article needs to be cleaned up, then do that. If the subject doesn't meet the notability guidelines, then discuss that. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the previous AfDs I've seen related to paid editing, the tendency has been to consider the article on its own merits, rather than delete on the basis of who wrote it. (Assuming the author wasn't blocked or banned). In this case, it doesn't seem overly promotional, and appears to meet the GNG. The possibility that Elvey raises, that paid advocacy may be illegal under US law, is worth pursuing, but AfD isn't the place for it. I hope that the WMF's legal team is looking into the issue, and it would be very interesting to see an office action banning paid advocacy. If legal advice from the WMF suggests that the problem Elvey raises is valid, then I suspect AfD will be moot, and this would become a CSD concern. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 6 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salt Spring Coffee[edit]

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

A huge puffery about an non-notable business. - Altenmann >t 10:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. (What a horrible article).TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article includes substantial content reporting criticism as well as positive material about the subject, and it is sourced to a wide variety of reliable sources--not all of them from the Salt Spring/Vancouver area, either. It might ultimately be too local a business to sustain a Wikipedia article, but not because of puffery or lack of sourcing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you remove PR puffery and "criticism" about bad smell (very encyclopedic info, right?), nothing is left of the article. I don't really care, but this is exactly the case of PR push in wikipedia we will never have enough hands to fend off. - Altenmann >t 18:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree one non-hyperbolic 150% with the above.TheLongTone (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, independent coverage in a number of reliable sources including The Globe and Mail, The Georgia Straight and The Vancouver Sun. Probably just barely enough to kick it over the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – The puffery can be edited away, but this is company is notable, with coverage as noted by Lankiveil, also in the Times Colonist ("Salt Spring Coffee and the growth cult" by Diane McNally. Times Colonist [Victoria, B.C] 20 June 2010: D3; and "The sad saga of Salt Spring Coffee" by Kay Maclean. Times Colonist [Victoria, B.C] 06 June 2010: A18) and there is additional national-level coverage in The Globe and Mail ("Voted off the island? Salt Spring coffee company contemplates next move" by Shannon Moneo. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 08 Aug 2009: S2; and "You want cream, sugar or carbon credits with that?" by Rebecca Lindell. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 30 June 2010: A7). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether to say Keep or WP:TNT. Worst article I think I've seen. But passes the GNG Neonchameleon (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep. I listed this for deletion back in March 2010 (see the edit comments prior to that one, three or four of them) but back then there was nowhere near as much press copy on it and it was being heavily edited and worked on by a blatantly COI SPA who was intent on WP:OWNing it. For better or worse, it's now been in the news, and though (like most company articles) a sort of advertising, it's beyond the control of their ad firm now and has a certain notability. If other coffee rival coffee chains are here, I can't see why this one can't be (I know there's that guideline/principle about "because this exists, doesn't mean this can). But there's a certain kind of meat here now. So keep it, there's way more blatant spam and coi out there than this, and so much OR and SYNTH it makes me choke at times.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 6 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro Issa[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only a single top tier fight. LiberatorLX (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. LiberatorLX (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is routine sports reporting and he does not yet meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pensacola Roller Gurlz[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. - Mr X 23:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Might be difficult for individual leagues to get the necessary coverage, so a list of leagues would probably be a better idea. Plus, that would probably easily satisfy WP:LISTN. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:15, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 (number)[edit]

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

Article about an arbitrarily chosen number, listing two trivial properties. I was going to suggest a merge to 2000 (number), but the properties are too trivial to include even there. Also nominating 2014 (number), which lists no properties of the number at all. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per WP:WINI. ///EuroCarGT 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even an assertion of notability for 2014 and 2013 is just happenstance. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. As the editor who added the two properties in question (removing some even-more-boring properties) I agree that they are not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) (which asks for three properties, not just two, and asks that they be interesting properties). I think a reasonable proxy for interestingness is that the number in question be among the first half-dozen values in an OEIS sequence tagged with "nice" (or alternatively one that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article). 2013 is indeed early in the two OEIS sequences listed, but they are not nice. And I was unable to find any better properties to list. A similar search for 2014 turns up two properties labeled as nice that I think are still too specialized to be truly interesting (area under Motzkin excursions, and indexes of dodecahedral numbers that are sums of two other dodecahedral numbers), and that's it. So again, not three interesting properties. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to say that I find these curious properties of numbers rather interesting but I will leave voting to others. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements for numbers. The alternative would be a merge to 2000 (number) but the numbers currently listed there generally have more interesting and unusual properties than 2013. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 10 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RaiseAChild.US[edit]

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

Promotional article for a local organization, but not of more than local significance as judged by the purely local references DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ORG. I could not find significant coverage in a search, and the references in the article don't provide any. Some of the listed references give the organization a passing mention; others are simply about the adoption issue. --MelanieN (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. Non-trivial coverage does not exist. Also fails WP:ORG. - tucoxn\^talk 22:55, 6 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. Michig (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Blake (author)[edit]

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

Non notable author. Not a single one of his books are even in WorldCat; as far as I can tell they are self published. Nothing else there is even remotely notable DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not remotely notable. Also nominated one of his self-pub books here. [32]. Almost a speedy candidate for blatant promotional content. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What DGG said. Plus, the article makes claims about awards and censorship of one of his books. I could find no evidence of any of that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like there may be a COI issue. The editor responsible to adding the article is Mavericknes . The author website is marcusmaverickblake.com. Coincidence? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete, concur with above Only sourced to subjects page. Cannot gauge the notability of awards, but the absence of WorldCat listing is ominous. Amazon author ssearch did not show a rank lower than 400,000 (unsure of how much weight to grant that). Self pub does not always equate to non notable, but I get no indication of notability. GaleNet search had no listing. Alexa did not have a rating for subject's webpage. Dloh cierekim 09:22, 7 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 deleted. by User:Jimfbleak (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: no independent sources, no evidence of notability) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ion-Ovidiu Panisoara[edit]

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

A hideously self-promotional pair of articles from single-purpose editor Iodiand. I don't see how the subject passes WP:BIO or any subsidiary criteria. Certainly, the sources given don't amount to much, given that none of them is independent of the subject: his homepage, his company's page, a blurb from his publisher, a conference bio and a blog post. The caliber of the "sources" about his book is much the same (for instance, a press release from his university). That article too fails, WP:BKCRIT in its case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

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

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

The result was keep. The deletion rationale has been significantly refuted in the discussion below, and the sole delete !vote (other than the nomination) is not policy-based. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting[edit]

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

This topic fails GNG. All sources relate to the shooting, not the "reactions" to it. As such thats WP:SYNTH to try and craft an article about it. Stuff happened because of this shooting - which means it belongs in the main shooting article. Beerest 2 talk 02:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLITTING. this is indeed content about the shooting, but there is a lot of the content and putting it all into the main article would swamp it. spinning off sub articles for detailed contents is entirely appropriate and normal. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a valid content split. The main article was too long so I split this information out to its own article. It survived one AFD already, and we had discussions about it on the talk page previously. Mentioning what the leaders of various nations around the world said about an incident, is historically important, which is why we have Category:Reactions articles. Dream Focus 03:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Per previous AfD as well as above. The article is on an entirely separate topic. PrairieKid (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cruft and merge the rest: Most of this is just statements by people responding to an event in the news. The event is notable, and the statements, eh, not so much. p b p 04:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't just about reactions, which spanned the globe, but also deals with how it spurred gun control measures. We have plenty of "cruft" on Wikipedia but to use this term to refer to this article is outrageous. Coretheapple (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well researched and reasoned article with a specific focus that is supported by reliable sources should not be deleted, this is part of the WP:DETAIL aspect of Wikipedia. This content is far more detailed then necessary for the main article and justifies the split. It should continue to be improved and reorganized so state and national interests are present above international condolences. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps the article has been revised since nomination, but in its current state it focuses entirely on the reactions and is clearly bulletproof in its notability. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Article hasn't changed at all since then. Hasn't changed much at all since it was created over a year ago. Dream Focus 16:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then I am perplexed as to why this was nominated. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - dont understand the nomination really. It is clearly notable with reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this nominated for deletion? There are clearly many reliable sources for this. Epicgenius (talk) 18:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not long since the last nomination and it was kept then. Clearly notable, clearly useful, and clearly has reliable sources. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don't understand delete rationale. The article's title reflects the content. Sourced reactions to the shooting. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:33, 5 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. This discussion has been relisted twice and still is equally divided. There appears to be some coverage of the subject but there is a dispute over how significant that coverage is. Guerillero | My Talk 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HP Flexible Data Center[edit]

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

If I understand this correctly, it is a building shell in which one can install computers. I don;t see the notability. There are references, but not everything referenced is appropriate for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has more background (HP bought a start-up which specializes in this.) We do have modular data center and Google Modular Data Center and so forth. If you want to propose we merge or delete all of those, then go for it. Otherwise this is a keep as it has similar press coverage as the other major industry players in this area. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Who cares what HP do any more, they're just another innovation-averse IT service company these days. We're not here to be their product catalogue. If someone independent pays attention to it, then this might might change. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is plenty of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, including [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] easily found in the first 3 pages of google hits. Your opinion of HP seems to have put some big tainted glasses on your !vote. Among all the modular data centers that we have articles for, this is probably the only one that isn't built from/in shipping containers. However, most of these articles are pretty stubby, including the grandaddy of them all, so I suppose someone could start a multiple merge discussion on the main article's talk page. (Also the "grandaddy" didn't modularize power and cooling, which some of the later ones, including this one, did.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Coverage appears borderline from what I found, but a Google search doesn't usually find everything (particularly while the Google News Archive is down), so I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Nobel Open Business School[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable vanity/advertising article for a recently founded private business school. All of the sources appear to be listings. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 08:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, degree-awarding colleges and universities are almost always considered notable unless the article is a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:01, 28 December 2013 (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) 02:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - this school appears to be unaccredited, and if so, the page is little more than spam for a diploma mill. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Til Death (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'Til Death (album)

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

fails WP:NALBUMS. Most of the refs are YouTube and there's even one facebook as a ref. LibStar (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination, no real coverage, band itself looks pretty shaky as an an article subject.TheLongTone (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep album appears on three component charts at Billboard, see Allmusic awards entry. The article is poorly referenced but it is still notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added the Allmusic ref to this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have now added an ARIA Report ref: Album charted on ARIA Heatseekers.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 23:41, 6 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) 02:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shaidar. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The chart placings show significance and if these details are added to the article there's too much for a merge to the band article to be appropriate. --Michig (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - updated references (as per previous comments) clearly estabish notability in accordance with WP:NALBUMS. Dan arndt (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French and Spanish economy during the Thirty Years' War[edit]

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

This is a huge slab of original research, personal opinions and inaccurate speculations. The whole thing is an essay based on the misconception that the Thirty Years' War was fought between France and Spain. Although other countries (including France and Spain) did send some troops to fight, the Thirty Years' War was a religious conflict within Germany. France and Spain backed opposite sides in the conflict, and treating them as a single economic entity in this context makes no sense. In addition, this essay makes many ludicrous claims (for instance, that Sweden - whose entire population at the time was about that of Paris - was richer than France with her huge population and vast American empire). Although the interventions of France and Spain in Germany did ultimately lead to the Franco-Spanish War, that was a conflict which went on until 1659 so obviously isn't the conflict meant by the author of this article (who repeatedly refers to 1648, the year the Thirty Years' War ended). Likewise, although the economy of the Iberian peninsula collapsed in the 1620s this was a result of Dutch privateering wrecking Portuguese maritime trade, not of the war in Germany.

This is a true orphan article, without a single incoming link and with page view statistics that can be entirely explained away by search engine sweeps, which is probably how it's managed to avoid notice up to now. This article is on a topic that probably isn't legitimate (the very concept of a "Spanish economy" is questionable in a period when Spain was a multi-state empire spread across five continents and including places as diverse as Patagonia, Amsterdam and Macau), and is so full of errors and unsourced speculation that even if it were kept, it would need to be completely blanked and rewritten. Mogism (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination: poorly formulated essay on a a specious topic.TheLongTone (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - economic history of the 30 years war would be notable and worth having in an encyclopaedia. But that's neither the right article to start from nor even on the right page. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a bad idea for an article, but this would require wholesale re-writing. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhazia–United States relations[edit]

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

there is no encyclopaedic value to this article as there is no actual relations. The USA does not recognise Abkhazia but neither does the vast majority of countries. Only 5 countries recognise Abkhazia and it's covered here International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia LibStar (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No references... Could not find anything with a couple quick Google searches. Any important information (if there really is any) can be covered in the American-Georgian relations article. PrairieKid (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect The article in its current state doesn't say anything that isn't already better said in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Novusuna ^talk 04:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially because United States does not recognize Abkazia as a de facto independent nation. So, basically there are no relations.My very best wishes (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The policy based arguments are in favor of deletion Guerillero | My Talk 06:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Force[edit]

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable: one of the article's two independent cites[38] pretty well says as much.TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Even some of Kenner's most popular lines lasted only three years, so the fact this one lasted a year is not really relevant. For a nearly 25 year old subject (pre-web), there is not going to be a huge amount of web RS refs, but there are a few. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (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) 02:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not a compelling argument to keep an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I didn't say there weren't any RS refs. What I said is that there is not a HUGE number, but there are some. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:18, 6 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. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Lau[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as lacking references for 4 years. There is scant indication that the subject , who wrote some language textbooks, satisfies the relevant notability guideline, WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF 4, "made a significant impact in the area of higher education". Although I had never heard of these textbooks, Google books and Google scholar turn up lots remarks such as, "Cantonese terms have been transcribed using Sidney Lau's system of romanization" (Pina-Cabral 2002), "my own data employs the Sidney Lau system" (Chappell 2006), and "three [systems of romanization] have survived and are currently in use in Hong Kong: Meyer-Wempe, Sidney Lau and Yale" (Burke 2007). Cnilep (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can be referenced (I added one), if not all that easily, and Lau seems to meet point four of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) for notability. Kschlot1 (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few more references, including academic evaluations of Lau's romanization system.Kschlot1 (talk) 13:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable. -- GreenC 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cnilep. --Randykitty (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Coll[edit]

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

This man fails the guidelines for notability as little has been written about him; the article is unsourced Beerest 2 talk 02:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources exist, mainly on the Pittsburgh Police Chief article and numerous others, he is of similar notability as another other major city 20th century administrator and deserves inclusion on the encyclopedia. For my part I will work to find more sources and and further data, however there are hundreds of Pittsburgh related stubs that can also use TLC to avoid any "Proposed Deletion" so my deepest sentiment on this would be to invite any and all to assist with the dozens of Police Chiefs, city and county agencies, parks, corporations and the like. Thank you for your care in this matter.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article, migrated 3 references currently on wikipedia's Pittsburgh Police Chief article as well as added a few more, I will continue to work on expanding the article however not every important and necessary article will or should be lengthy.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Police chiefs of major cities are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, article has been greatly expanded and article length is not indicative of importance. Also agree that major city police chiefs are by default notable.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Served a decade as a police chief of a major American city. Sufficient for notability--GrapedApe (talk) 23:44, 11 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 University of York. There is no good or agreed upon target to merge this page. Any more than a line or two at University of York would be undue weight in content. Guerillero | My Talk 06:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Effective Education[edit]

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

promotional article on a non notable organization, a small center within a university. We very rarely make such articles--the centers have to be much more notable than this. the articles are not really about the subject, though they do mention it.

Accepted at afc nonetheless. DGG ( talk ) 01:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent organization, University of York. Editors are welcome to merge whatever is appropriate. This group does not have independent notability per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (rather than a mere redirect). This appears to be a research programme of the University's Education Department. If we had an article on that, it should be the merge target, but we do not seem to have anything below the whole university. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 5 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Imbesi[edit]

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

No indication of significance why subject is important to be included as an encyclopedic content. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Did not find evidence of notability in article or doing casual google search. Name is mentioned in passing on a few websites, but I didn't see articles written about him. --Agyle (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is not notable. After a quick Google search no articles of importance are written on him. The only pages including his name and information is IMDb. Don't know what else could be added to the page and it currently reads like an advertisement. If the page is to keep, there needs to be additional references and promotional claims needs to be removed. Meatsgains (talk) 22:06, 12 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Gagoshidze[edit]

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

No indication of significance why subject is important. No reliable third party sources found. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very weak references, seems to fail WP:ARTIST notability req. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is important cause the artist is know for new techniques and concepts that he uses. Article has been updated and third party references have been added (Digital Database of Georgian modern and contemporary artists www.art.gov.ge; Georgian Contemporary Art Portal demo.ge; Karchkhadze Books Shops Chain website. --Kkiissel (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ARTIST. Looking at the sources added by Kkiissel, #1: art.gov.ge is a "systematic" database of all Georgian artists.[39] The bar for inclusion is thus very low sort of like a phone book of every artist in Georgia not a reliable marker of notability. #2: Saatchi website looks like a combination commercial website and social media site which Giorgi himself maintains - if Giorgi was profiled in their "One to Watch" feature that would be something, but he is not. The source isn't independently notable as is. #3 demo.ge are sources by Giorgi not about Giorgi, thus can't be used to assess notability. And that's it basically, no reliable or indepedent sources available. No profiles in art magazines, no newspaper articles, no exhibition write-ups, etc.. all the typical things one usually finds for notable artists. -- GreenC 16:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. art.gov.ge is digital database of Georgian modern and contemporary artists which is initiated by Ministry of Culture and Georgian National Museum. The list of Giorgi's exhibitions is available on this website. Write-ups about Giorgi's exhibitions or published book are available in Georgian printed media, but not in English. Demo.ge is contemporary art portal managed by a third party. --Kkiissel--Kkiissel (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can only vote one time, but your welcome to reply to my vote. The database didn't seem selective, just evidence that he is a Georgian artist, it's a list of all Georgian artists. What is Giorgi's website? Georigan sources are OK since we have Google Translate to verify sources, or if the sources are not online it can be cited anyway. Demo.ge contains material created by Giorgi. -- GreenC 02:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability. Jaqeli (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been updated by additional references by 3rd parties --Kkiissel--Kkiissel (talk)--Kkiissel (talk) 22:37, 12 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. Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahead Learning Systems[edit]

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

pure advertising , regardless of notability DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, not notable based on reliable non-primary sources I could find with Google searching for "Ahead Learning Systems" and a couple variants. It was mentioned in passing in an article on college entrance exam review here, and in an article about the founder here, but most other mentions I could find with google are from the company itself, on their site, in apparent press releases, on job posting sites, etc. Non-internet sources cited in the current article are cited to support what sound like marketing-oriented sentences (e.g. getting your "dream job"), so it's possible they're reliable sources, but I don't have access to them. --Agyle (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. This article is unambiguously promotional. Non-trivial coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 22:59, 6 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-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Scott[edit]

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

I don't know if this person meets notability standards, and I have serious doubts. Most of the sources in the article are listicles, all of them are industry publications. A search for additional sources turned up nothing reliable or independent. Ego White Tray (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This person is also known as Nasty Habits. An Allmusic bio, Rough Guide entry, and apparent (from the snippet) The Wire album review is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Gong show 03:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gongshow's sources show that WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO are met. Additionally, we should probably add a hatnote to Nasty Habits pointing to Doc Scott, since he is also known by that name in d&b circles. — sparklism ^hey! 08:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant coverage identified above satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 611[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, and no significant coverage in studies, as required. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: It's an IAU radial velocity standard star, and I get a couple of borderline hits on "HD 144579". But I don't think it's enough to justify a keep. Praemonitus (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 453[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. Not visible to the naked eye, and no significant coverage in papers. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:18, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It gets a few mentions as "HD 103932", but not enough to keep. Praemonitus (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gliese 250[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. Not visible to the naked eye, and no significant coverage in studies. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:19, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to keep this one - it's pretty close to us and is only just below the magic 6th magnitude marker. this suggests it has been the subject of some discussion already (as a binary system there'd be accurate material on how massive the system is somewhere, which is better than single star systems). It is touched on in 134 references (yes I know most will be sparse at best, but together I think there is enough material to get an article with the equivalent level of detail as the Solstation one, which is interesting) Sorry, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'll admit this one is one of the more borderline stars, with how close it is to being visible to the naked eye. I can definitely see the reasoning on this one, even though I myself would personally still like it deleted. W/e we'll just see how consensus goes on this one (In addition to Cygnus and Perseus I'm doing a lot of nearby star cleanup right now, since I have a lot of free time atm). StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2013 (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) 02:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think there's just barely enough mentions as "HD 50281" in the journals to justify a keep. Praemonitus (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 12 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. None of the keep arguments are policy based. (Mostly of the Other stuff exists and the look at the super wealthy! variety.) Guerillero | My Talk 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Premiership football club owners[edit]

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

PROD removed without reason. Although the Scottish Premiership and its member clubs are clearly notable subjects, I think collating the club owners in a standalone list is not a notable subject. There are also problems with WP:V; some of the information is not publicly available as some clubs are private companies, and reports of individual net worths are inconsistent. Some of the clubs are also moving towards fan ownership (e.g. Motherwell), rendering a list like this obsolete. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable subject. Giant Snowman 11:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication the notion of Scottish Premiership football club owners has received any kind of significant coverage as a subject itself. Seems like listcruft to me to an extent. Fenix down (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If you can have this then this list has the same merit.--Egghead06 (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. At the top level of English football, you are mostly talking about multi-billionaires whose wealth (and ownership of the club concerned) is greatly publicised. At lower levels, which are more comparable to the majority of Scottish clubs, not so much. As can be seen from that table. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the fact that clubs can be bought and sold by millionaires on a whim is an important subject (though some of the rich and powerful try to hide this). That some clubs are now going to community/fan ownership highlights how significant an issue this can be (and those clubs in fan ownership can be listed). Though yes, the list does need some more sources for the unreferenced parts. If you followed the guidelines at WP:BEFORE you might have found some. --Vclaw (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)#[reply]

Did it occur to you that might have already tried that? To give an example of how thoroughly hopeless it is to write an article on this subject, the most recent list in a reliable source (the FourFourTwo 2011/12 Rich List) gives the wealth of Vladimir Romanov (#47) as £100M. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to base it on a single list, different parts can come from different sources. There's plenty of more accurate/up to date reliable sources about the ownership of Hearts for example. Or the Sunday Times Rich List 2013 gives the wealth for a few of those owners. --Vclaw (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're admitting that it would be impossible to fully source this article. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of the article do you think are not verifiable? If there are no verifiable sources for part, it can listed as unknown. There are plenty of other lists with parts unknown/incomplete, that is not a reason to delete them.--Vclaw (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Owning a club is one of the ways that the super-rich waste their money about. I say waste, because most football clubs lose money, so that the investment is more like a donation. By making the club a subsidiary of a profitable company, they can in effect reduce its group profits and hence their tax. In effect, HMRC is thus subsidising football on behalf of all of us taxpayers. The ownership of football clubs is certainly a notable subject, and the article's existence thus is justified. Peterkingiron (talk)

Do you have any examples of this in relation to the Scottish Premiership? Otherwise that sounds like original research to me. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - argument to delete appears to simply be that it's not notable. However no case is made for why it's not notable, and on face value, seems notable. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how this is a notable encyclopaedic article at all. JMHamo (talk) 16:29, 13 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. Michig (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and Crime: Oliver's Strange Journey[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NBOOK. The SPA that created the article claimed it was from "Westhoff Publishing". I can't find that publisher, but Amazon says this is from "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform".[40] In other words, self-published. Couldn't locate any significant coverage of the book by reliable third party sources. No ranking in Amazon. Nothing at all to indicate that this book has done anything that gets it past NBOOK. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even in Worldcat -- apparently self published. I have also nominated the page on the author for deletion, as all that he has done is written a few self-published books. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having hunted around, I can't seem to find any sources covering the work, which is more important than who the publisher is (although the publisher is, of course, indicative). Ironholds (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. The publisher wasn't really part of the reason. I mentioned it as an indication that there may be willful deception. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Totally; I wasn't trying to be snide, just clear about what I'd done. I trust you enough not to assume you just went "not heard of it, baleet!" ;p. Ironholds (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book was just published a few days ago, so Wordcat doesn't have it in their catalog yet. The Kindle edition of the book is currently #1 for the topic drug dependency on Amazon.com: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=792472497432755&set=a.789974017682603.1073741829.787081267971878&type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jess Franken (talk • contribs) 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Jess Franken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not exactly true. It's no. 1 among the grand total of 4 free books in their classification drug dependency. (there are 100s of paid ones, including everything important.) If no library buys it, WorldCat will never have it. That's the situation for about 95% of self-published books. The 5% that do show up in worldcat, characteristically are in two or three libraries where the author donates them and they decide to be friendly to a local author and catalog it. Of course, a few self published books each year do actually become notable, but he presumption is otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, simply being in WorldCat doesn't make the book notable. It proves it exists.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-trivial coverage does not exist. - tucoxn\^talk 23:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cahoots (magazine)[edit]

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

I found no notability for this magazine. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: or merge with a list of magazines. It is useless. Leoesb1032 (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Randykitty (talk) 13:30, 6 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.