Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 March	19 March >

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 redirect to List of Power Rangers characters. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 22:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Power Rangers[edit]

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

This is just a technical/housekeeping request. I don't think this page realy has any use anymore. The subject may be notable to some degree, but this same information is hosted at List of Power Rangers characters. The only difference is that the other list collects the names of every character who has appeared in some capacity and this one just lists the protagonists. It also links to several pages which no longer exist after several merges. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comment This page seems somewhat useful for navigation in listing them by franchise, whereas List of Power Rangers characters is alphabetical (neither list is sortable). I'm not sure if that's sufficient reason to keep, especially as the other article could be reformatted. (And since I never needed to find information about Power Rangers I can't really be too certain.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that there are no more individual character articles around to require navigation like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Character list is enough. If a visitor to the character list wants to know specific series characters, most computers have search functions. Or the article can be formatted and a generic list can be added. — Wylie pedia 14:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the character list, but that could use some reformatting to highlight main vs minor characters. ansh666 03:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Compared to the other list mentioned above, this one is more structured and easier to navigate. Suggest using this structure but on the full Characters list to increase readability, and the subsequent deletion of this article. One proper list should be sufficient. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Russell[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO as the nominator states. I can't find any RS coverage to pass GNG in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete blps must be sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kortney Kane[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins and being a Penthouse Pet of the Month is not enough. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete blps must be sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not received any awards that would make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contrary to what Gene contends, also being a Penthouse Pet has been enough to keep many other other articles because its a mainstream publication. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Playmates and Penthouse Pets are not automatically notable. Those criteria were removed from PORNBIO years ago. Non-notable Playmates and Pets do get deleted here. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that status by itself does not, but when you start combining things, it bears a closer review. There are thousands of porn actors, hundreds of Playmates and Pets, a select few that are both. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your views to be accorded any credibility you need to start putting forward arguments that have a basis on what wikipedia considers a reason to include a subject and not some nonsense just plucked out of thin air. Don't like the policies? Then go work on something where you and the rest of the community can agree on. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with nominator and Gene93k. Finnegas (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yua Sakuya[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No significant assertion of notability. No awards or nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. All references/links are promotional or copyvio pages. PROD removed by article creator. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible assertion of notability. Just a brief porno filmography. No claims per PORNBIO. No reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete blps must be sourced. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the relevant notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, BLP without references, PROD to expire in two days anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Annabelle T. Cuan[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable coverage of the subject in the media. Ironholds (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find no coverage, and the article doesn't even make a claim of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). The page was re-listed twice, no contradictory comments. Nominated article is already merged within parent article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rotana (television)[edit]

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

Non-notable tv channel Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the other articles, this would probably be best merged into Rotana Group Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: I agree with above since this could be easily incorporated into the Rotana Group page which I have done. So this page can be easily rendered a redirect now. I have done the same for the Rotana radios stations and already merged them to Rotana Groupwerldwayd (talk) 13:10, 28 February 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, NativeForeigner ^Talk 18:08, 10 March 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 21:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above. Neutrality^talk 05:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 editors arguing to keep the article have put forth a number of seemingly reliable sources that appear to show that Doherty passes WP:GNG, and no one was able to refute that those sources are reliable. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 20:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Doherty[edit]

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

Please see WP:GNG and WP:BIOfor information on notability guidelines.

Non-notable blogger and pop counter-apologist. Out of all the references, only one is a reliable source:

"Ehrman, Bart D (2012). Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. New York: HarperCollins. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8."

That book is primarily about New Testament sholarship, and countering those who counter that Jesus did not exist. I have not read it mind you. But it seems to discuss Earl Doherty's ideas, but he is only one of many. It's not the kind of indepth third party source that is needed.

Many of the arguments used in the previous debate are a good example of WP:AADD.

Strong Keep - an article on a person at the center of a religious controversy that has all these links is at least as notable as characters in some video games

Notability is not inherited. The controversy might be notable, but individual people involved in it might not be. Also referring to other pages is not relevant. Each page needs to stand on its own.

There are 20,000 google hits for <"Earl Doherty" Jesus>.

Google hits are irrelevant. What is relevant is third party sourcing.

-Regarded as one of the ="pillars" of the modern Jesus Myth concept.

Which is irrelevant. Notability is not inherited. The topic might be relevant, and perhaps he should have a sub-section in the Christ myth theory article, but not that he should have his own article.

There were a few more sources listed:

American Atheists (link currently dead)
New Humanist
Unpacking Christ's case Robert Price. Free Inquiry. Buffalo: Summer 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 3; pg. 66, 1 pgs-- (Full text available on ProQuest)

I'm not sure if any of these count as reliable third party sources. Many of them are small atheist publications, and not more neutral third party sources.

Moving onto some of the other criteria. For WP:ANYBIO, he fails both #1 and #2. He's won no such award, and the Jesus Myth Theories have existed for centuries before his contributions. If you go by WP:NACADEMICS he also fails. For #1, as I said JMT have existed for some time. He does have an advanced degree, and he has only been published in one minor journal, Journal of Higher Criticism which is of questionable reliability. I question how rigorous the peer review really is, and how major a historical journal it really is. His most notable contribution so to speak, seems to be one of those criticized by Bart Ehrman in his 2012 book Did Jesus Exist?. He also fails criteria #2-9. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Almost all search results are forums or blogs. Very, very sparse coverage in any remotely reliable source, not enough to meet WP:BIO let alone WP:AUTHOR. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple reliable sources cited in the article that support notability. Ehrman (Did Jesus Exist?), Wells (Can We Trust the New Testament?, and Casey (Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?) all provide substantial discussion and meet the criteria for reliability and independence (reinforced by the fact that all are critical of Doherty). The reviews from Zindler, Carrier and Price also count toward notability. The fact that an outlet has an ideological perspective does not disqualify it from supporting notability as long as it has no direct affiliation with the subject. That's six entirely non-redundant independent sources already in the article. If more are needed, there is discussion of Doherty in The Pagan Christ, in The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Price again, but a better quality source than the Free Inquiry review), and in Reinventing Jesus. I'm only mentioning substantial discussions that help show notability; there are many lesser mentions and citations. --RL0919 (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I do not like this article as it is contrary to my POV, but the multiple reviews clearly mean that Jesus Puzzle is a notable book. Since we do not have an article on the book, it is appropriate to have one on the author and his work generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is an article about a self-published author and blogger with very few references outside the niche area of the fringe theory he writes about. The few reliable sources there are for him, for instance Ehrman's or Casey's books, dismiss him as a crank who doesn't know what he is talking about.Smeat75 (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage per User:Gene93k. Crank's can be notable. -- GreenC 14:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renuka Datla[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Darkness Shines (talk) 19:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support strong support for deletion as per blp too Shrikanthv (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is just another company director. NB: I did originally attempt to redirect this to Biological E. Limited but director records show that she is involved with other companies, which makes selection of a redirect impossible. In any event, notability is not inherited. - Sitush (talk) 15:36, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was softdelete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RAID (NGO)[edit]

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

no secondary sources. no assertion of notability. A quick google didn't find much. Widefox; talk 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This appears to be a political campaigning organisation concerned with campaigning to frustrate certain mining eneterprises in the third world. Some of these mining companies may be nasty pieces of work and may need action taken against them, but I do not see any evidence on theri website of abything notable, other than acting as a news service on theri campaigns. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marrese Crump[edit]

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

Looks like an autobiography with no support for claims of being a notable actor or martial artist. Appears to have no major acting roles and nothing to show he meets WP:MANOTE. Also doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG since he lacks significant independent coverage--the sources are either dead links, not independent, don't mention him, or aren't reliable.Mdtemp (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Playing unnamed characters (e.g., "Cobra Trooper") does not show he's a notable actor nor do I see anything that shows he meets WP:MANOTE. I agree with nom about the sources being insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet any notability standards.204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maximiliano Hernández[edit]

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

This has been discussed before. Nothing has changed to make him more notable. JDDJS (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ENT, an actor is considered notable if he or she "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Maximiliano Hernandez has appeared in the role of Jasper Sitwell in two released Marvel films (Thor, The Avengers), as well as at least three episodes of the TV Series Agents of SHIELD. He will also be reprising the role in the upcoming Captain America sequel, and he was featured along with the rest of the featured cast members of Captain America: The Winter Soldier at the Red Carpet premiere event (see here where he is called up @ around 1:57:20). He has also starred in the TV series The Americans. I believe this satisfies the criterion for notability mentioned above, and so I believe the article ought to be kept. (Note that I haven't edited Wikipedia actively in a while so I may be misinterpreting or misapplying the notability guidelines!) -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the page creator or are you voting?

Keep - These roles all seem pretty high profile to me. Three episodes of Law & Order, regular on the show Ringer. I think he meets notability requirements.
Keep - Its only been in existence for a few hours, give it time. I really don't understand your vendetta against this guy having an article. Rusted AutoParts 21:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because someone wants a page deleted does not necessarily mean that there is a vendetta. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nominator states nothing has changed in regards to the actor's notability, which seems untrue. He had a series regular role on The Americans, has recurring roles in S.H.I.E.L.D. and TNT's The Last Ship, and a notable role in the Captain America sequel. Clicking on his name in the "find sources" template above turns up a number of reliable sources that discuss his career and work. -Fandraltastic (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just wanted to note that I have gone through and added some material and references to the page. And that was all from a quick Google search, I am sure there is more out there. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seems to enough sources currently being used to justify a decent start class article. Also I implore editors to explore all alternatives to deletion, including drafting, before decieding to delete.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the other editors, that there is enough to create a decent start class article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maveryx[edit]

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

No references since September 2011. I ran a quick Google search and found nothing to support notability (WP:GNG). Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 19:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikis Mantakas[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:CRIME. reddogsix (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

Murder can make the victims notable depending on the circumstances and its an article about a personality, there is several subject with reliable sources. Also existed to other lauguages Ελληνικά, Italiano.--MonternZ (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be just inside the scope of WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly keep The article's subject is significantly notable per Wiki criteria, supported by reliable, third-party sources, in mainstream media and political and academic literature, etc. This is not even close. -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 18 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 19:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah[edit]

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

Merge into Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_370. It has already been redirected there once, but it was reverted. Superm401 - Talk 19:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Superm401. Nothing about him requires a stand alone article. If we do decide he is notable, we should drop the Captain from the article name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. Not yet notable for anything outside of the single aircraft incident, for which his involvement is so far unknown, beyond the current burst of speculation in the press. Ruby Murray 12:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constantinos Antonopoulos[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG. No independent sources. does make a claim of notability, so can't CSD. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might be the case. Could I ask something? If it does get deleted, is there any chance it might be passable as a sub-section in Intralot's article in its current form? Thanks Dirty83 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty83 That much content (especially with most of it unsourced) would be WP:UNDUE and a WP:COATRACK on the intralot article, but a very brief section covering him as the CEO and focusing on his actions within the company would be fine. (his history outside the company would not be) However, as a WP:BLP everything must be sourced to WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made some edits, cut a lot of unsourced content and added one more independent source. I believe everything mentioned now is sourced properly. I'm not sure why it shouldn't qualify for WP:GNG. It's about the head of a major company and a public figure, often mentioned in Greek media. Open to suggestions of course... Dirty83 (talk) 12:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 March 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, → Call me Hahc21 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 admin Jimfbleak. (Non-admin closure.) Stalwart111 20:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Model Railroad Hobbyist[edit]

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

Doesn't meet general notability guideline. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With apologies to Brett Duax (talk · contribs). Your efforts and sentiment are appreciated, but as explained below, this isn't what wikipedia is for. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caysie Torrey[edit]

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

college basketball player, then high school dance coach and non-notable acting role. A few sources, none reliable. This has been in WP for 25 months now. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her acting is son non-notable that the film Going the Distance that she played the role of a cheerleader in (apparently not rating having her character be given a name), seems to not be one of the three films of that name we have an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, does not meet notability requirements. She's done a lot, but I also know a dozen people with credentials like she has. Bali88 (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE - This is an article I put together for Caysie, my wife, to help boost our communities reputation. Although, she is not a Hollywood star nor a Broadway dancer, she is very important and has made a significant contribution to society. She is a outstanding role model to her young fan who do view Wikipedia. I may not know much about building Wikipedia articles but I do know that this article was accepted at the time and should remain accepted. Besides, what's the harm? User:Brett Duax (Husband) Brettduax (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately none of those reasons you've stated adds to her notability and there are specific policies that address all of them (including one that directly lists "what's the harm?" as a no-no WP:NOHARM). She sounds like a wonderful talented woman and she is lucky to have a husband who cares so much, but unfortunately wikipedia isn't the place for boosting reputations or gaining publicity. Also, none of these arguments will gain any votes with anyone. What *will* help is if you can demonstrate she meets notability policies. It may be a good time to review them and figure out whether she meets them. If not, a better strategy would be to create/maintain a website for her specifically. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 20 kish accident[edit]

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

This seems to be translated using Google translate, and is totally unclear what the article is about. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this air accident [1] got some press coverage when it happened,[2] but I don't see this passing the WP:EVENT guideline or complying with the advice from WP:AIRCRASH. A very old plane having an accident in Iran may be unfortunate, but it's not that unusual. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Gene93k:, why does it have to be unusual, and who says it is not. It seems to be the only crash documented at wikipedia that involves a Falcon 20. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, just one bizjet accident of hundreds every year--Petebutt (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree with the nomination rationale which says: "totally unclear what the article is about". It is very clear to me that this is about a disaster involving a plane that crashed near Kish Lake. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear now, but at the moment I nominated the page for deletion, it looked like this: [3]. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So your sole rationale for deletion is no longer valid. You may or may not be aware of the option of withdrawing the nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not cross the various bars for notability. No Wikinotable people killed, no lasting impact, no WP:PERSISTENCE. Wikipedia is not the news and is also not a crystal ball - if this becomes notable later, it can be recreated, there is no deadline, but there is no need to keep a non-notable article on the grounds that it might. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Normally, with this minimal level of discussion, I'd want to relist, but it's already been on AfD for over 3 weeks, so that seems a little pointless. Opinion is leaning towards keep, but one of the keepers is an SPA, so I'm just going to call this NC and let it go at that. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Stahl[edit]

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

Actress and photographer who has had a number of minor parts in various movies - does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a few more sources at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Lisa Stahl Sullivan, but all of them are trivial mentions - mostly cast lists for movies, or search results. --bonadea contributions talk 10:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete. Tough one, since it appears she appeared in 30+ different TV shows/movies/TV movies, but all were in minor roles, except the Baywatch Nights spinoff show. I don't believe that her body of work meets WP:NACTOR. Photography doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO more generally. mikeman67 (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Updating to delete after further consideration and comments by Bonadea. mikeman67 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She isn't a household name, but she's been in ALOT of top shows/movies. She is the type of person I would google to find out more about if I spotted her in one of these roles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed, but googling for her turns up no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources, which indicates a lack of notability. The only source (except for cast listings and trivial mentions) is a blurb on the home page of her old high school. Furthermore, WP:NACTOR specifies that an actor should have had "significant roles in multiple notable [...] productions"; the "multiple" is there, but not the "significant", since all her parts have been minor, with the possible exception of Baywatch Nights. I admit that the fact that her name, unlike that of other minor characters, has been inserted in the cast list in several of the Wikipedia articles about major movies she's been in makes me wary that Wikipedia is being used as a promotional platform for her, but I genuinely do not think that the notability is there. --bonadea contributions talk 11:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's done more than minor roles. She was recurring on Murphy Brown as Garry Marshall's mistress, had the lead roles in two Disney Channel movies, was the Speedo model for three years. She retired from the front of the camera when she got married and had children and went into photography for lots of celebs and shows. I'm a fan and there are a lot of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanleyeisen (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This account is a WP:SPA that has exclusively made edits about Stahl on this and related pages. I'm guessing there's a WP:COI here. mikeman67 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the current article is a wreck, she's had a recurring supporting role on TV's Baywatch and its spin-off, Baywatch Nights. FWIW, her guest spot on Married With Children was not memorable. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 4 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 02:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Cauldron (essay)[edit]

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

This essay itself is not enough notable. It may just me discussed/mentioned in the article about the book that contains it. damiens.rf 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe someone "in the know" can comment on the importance of this piece, but I can't find anything that makes me think this is a notable essay. Bali88 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding mention of it in a lot of academic textbooks and the like, either as a reference ([4], [5] [6], [7], [8], [9]) or just outright quoted. I've found two academic texts that detail it in length and I'm not done looking yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book lists it as a reference in relation to medicine, and it's also listed here, here, and had an article in InformationWeek as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Keep. I'm not in the know, but I'm finding it in multiple, multiple academic textbooks. A look for sources in my school's JSTOR finds a few more sources as well. I've added them to the article. I'd have argued for an article about the book as a whole, but multiple sources cite this essay specifically as something that's a pretty good example of what Raymond was trying to say. It does need some TLC from someone who is more savvy with this, but so far I'm finding enough evidence to show that this is fairly notable. It's used relatively frequently in sources, so I'm trying to be more selective with what I bring up, but it does seem to have coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar has this cited 185 times as well. ([10]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked some people from the computer WP to help take a look at the page and clean it up some, as well as look for more sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, as it now looks to be notable, due to the addition of found sources. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources found and added to the article demonstrate topic notability through multiple reliable sources. Nice work, Tokyogirl79! --Mark viking (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Platfora[edit]

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

No evidence of notability/ Being named on a lst of one of the o ten best within a specialized field is not notability. Being name the best of all, in a major field, but a recognized authority, would be another matter, but accepting this sort of listing as notability is something we have been doing too long, and should stop doing. DGG ( talk ) 10:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is written in a neutral encyclopaedic style. What is lost by including it? Leondz (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 6 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references provided in the article are already enough to meet WP:CORP, and as Leondz noted, the tone of the article is OK. --MelanieN (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. nothing is getting deleted here. perhaps stuff needs to be merged, or forked, I don't know, time will tell and consensus will develop somehow, but nothing is getting deleted and this AfD is counterproductive. -- Y not? 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Crimea[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This new federal subject is simply the Autonomous Republic of Crimea which can cover this subject easily after we polish that article to reflect these new changes. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: There are articles about South Ossetia, Abkhazia, or Transniestria even if they are not recognized by most of the international community. Now that Crimea independence was proclaimed following the March 16 referendum I think it is fine to have an article about this territory (it is irrelevant whether or not the independence was legitimate). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmoibenlepro (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 March 2014‎
Disagree: the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea is over, that article must stay as a historical article like the East Germany article, the Russian Republic of Crimea is the correct article for the current situation--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany is different because it's geographically different than Germany as a whole. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the federal subject are virtually the same thing except that one was an autonomous republic in Ukraine while the new one is a federal subject within Russia. The history, government, economy, geography remain the exact same. The difference being that when we used to refer to it "as an autonomic republic" we must now update the content to reflect that it is now "a federal subject". But everything else remains the same. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes you are right about the difference between east Germany and Crimea, but again the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea is over, so either merge the Ukrainian Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Russian Republic of Crimea with the article of Crimea or keep them both--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: It is different from Crimea, enough notability for an articles. Asiaworldcity (talk) 17:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The "accession" of the Republic of Crimea to Russia has not been internationally accepted. The "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" remains a constituent part of Ukraine, while the "Republic of Crimea" (now considered by Russia to be a part of the Russian Federation) is a separate political entity, deserving its own article. It's the same logic as that behind having separate Chechen Republic and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria articles. Even if Crimea were transferred to Russia according to all international norms, it would have still make sense to retain Autonomous Republic of Crimea as historical.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 18, 2014; 17:23 (UTC)
Note:: I removed the tag earlier to the article because the AfD was not properly transcluded and the page was not created. KonveyorBelt 17:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries. I had to pick up the phone right after I placed the AfD so I couldn't finish the process properly. No hard feelings! —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree (speedy close) due to the large differences in the basic characteristics of their respective administrations. Look at how Wikipedia presents the Socialist Republic of Slovenia and the other ex-Yugoslav states prior to their independence. - Anonimski (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is a unit of Ukraine; the Republic of Crimea is a unit of Russia. One unit cannot be in two countries, therefore we need at least one article on each. Snowball this. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Even if the republic is not a republic or if Crimea will become Ukrainian again according to all states, then is episode in history is now already sufficiently notable to have its own page…. L.tak (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There should be 3 or 4 separate articles. The best example for this is Kosovo that has 3 separate articles:

Kosovo (article is about the geographical region of Kosovo.)
Republic of Kosovo (article about partially recognized independent republic declared in 2008)
Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (article is about autonomous province of Kosovo on the territory of Serbia)

The same model can be used for Crimea:

Crimea (article about the geographical region of Crimea)
Autonomous Republic of Crimea (Ukrainian) (article about Autonomous Republic of Crimea claimed by Ukraine)
Republic of Crimea (country) (article about short lived, partially recognized, independent republic, declared in 2014...)
Republic of Crimea (Russian) (article about Republic of Crimea claimed by Russian Federation)

The last 2 examples, the short lived 3. Republic of Crimea (country) and the Republic of Crimea (Russian) can be merged together if necessary.Gaston28 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The Confederate States of America was considered illegitimate, but we still have an article about that. Let's keep this. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 18:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doncsecz^talk 18:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments by Cmoibenlepro--74.12.195.248 (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close as WP:DISRUPTIVE - The last AfD was not even 24 hours ago. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD was about a completely different subject which resides now at Republic of Crimea (country). Be careful with your accusations. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help! Realistically we have too many articles on Crimea at present, but we need an overall discussion about how to merge them sensibly, not a discussion about deleting an individual article at this stage. PatGallacher (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zarathustra : the Golden Star[edit]

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

Non-notable ebook whose author's article is up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Golrang Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find enough out there to show notability for this book. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. could be copyvio too Shrikanthv (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the article for the author has now been deleted. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dandali Na[edit]

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

Non-notable website lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:WEB. reddogsix (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 6 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Has any notable Nigerian newspaper written anything on this topic? if yes please provide links....and aside from the fact a not very popular actress used it, what other notable thing can be said about of it? I am Nigerian....I love social networks and internet a lot, so am surprised that I have never heard about it if its really notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darreg (talk • contribs) 14:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's be clear that having an actress use the site is not a criteria for Wikipedia accepted notability. reddogsix (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Thanks for the clarification. I just finished reading Wikipedia notability guidelines again and one thing that struck me is that "Notability is not Temporary". I cannot guarantee the permanent (or consistent) notability status for this article(that is even if it has any atom of notability). The only independent notable source on the article was not even talking about the Social Network independently but the actress that owns and uses the Social Network.

http://weekend.peoplesdailyng.com/index.php/entertainment/kannywood-nollywood/2616-kannywood-i-quickly-learned-hausa-::and-english-languages-to-become-actress-gabon

However I am quite skeptical about choosing a side (I don't want to make a mistake in my judgement), so I would sit on the fence and allow other Wikipedians choose sides. Darreg (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The website doesn't meet any wikipedia's notability guideline. Almost half of it's references are from twitter, the other references are from blogs.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is lacking reliable references. This source only talks about the life of the founder, and not about the social networking service. versace1608 (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I share exactly the same view as Jamie and Versace but initially did not want to be the first to throw the stone. In my opinion the article lacks reliable independent references and does not PRESENTLY meet Wikipedia notability criteria. Darreg (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Cruisers[edit]

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

This article does not cite any references or sources and the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. Since the creator of the article removed the PROD tag with a note on the talk page of "About the deletion: I am not good at writing whole pages - I just start them." I'm requesting BrayLockBoy that decide if he wants the article moved to WT:Articles for creation/Freeman Cruisers where he can work on it in an environment that will make it more likely to collaborate and have other editors help them with it, USERFIED to someplace in their userspace where they can work on it in piece and quite at their own pace, or deleted outright as a non-notable topic assuming of course the result of this discussion if carried out to completion is delete. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a good idea. I'm a new user, which means I can't do much in the way of adding images and files though. BrayLockBoy (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once I am confirmed, I can begin adding my own, non-copyrighted images to the article. Thanks! BrayLockBoy (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrayLockBoy:, are you requesting userfication or a move to AfC? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a possibility. BrayLockBoy (talk) 07:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BrayLockBoy: Which one? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:20, 26 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacksonville Bancorp[edit]

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

No actual evidence of notability. I see a lot of citations - all of them automated, press releases or generic company biographies, as it were. Google isn't, obviously, conclusive, but it's the only tool I have available for further hunting, and when I use it I see much of the same - stock reports and generic biographies. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Banks do tend to get a lot of press, and we have articles about lots of them (see Category:Banks based in Florida.) "Jacksonville Bank" gets about 150 hits on HighBeam but some are false hits and of those that aren't, the great bulk of them are of the press release/routine financial statement variety that Ironholds describes. It's a relatively young bank and so perhaps not as likely to be notable as older ones. Google results suggest that the 2010 acquisition of Atlantic Bancgroup/Oceanside Bank seems to have gotten some attention in mainstream press, but paywalls make it hard to see how substantial this coverage has been. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 6 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, it is a publicly traded company, so there exist tons of documentation about it. And it is of quite significant size too. --doncram 02:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: if it's so obvious, could you provide that documentation? --Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Any company that is publicly traded in the U.S., i.e. whose shares are listed on NASDAQ or another stock exchange, must make extensive disclosures, required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Annual reports: formal 10-K statements. Tons more, all provided at the SEC's EDGAR website. here is a search run on "JAXB" at the Edgar site. And here is the most recent 10-K. These filings are reliable...they are pored over and audited and legally vetted. Hope this helps you. --do ncr am 02:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, in other words, they're legally obligated publications authored by the subject? That'd seem to fail both the 'independent' and 'third-party' requirements of the notability guidelines. --Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The 10-K report includes substantive discussion on business and prospects and risks, and contains financials, and is reliable as a source for financial info and so on. There is a good amount in the 10-K which could be used in the article. --do ncr am 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  And any publicly traded company is written about by many others, by stock analysts, investment banks, and so on. For JAXB, i see that with $115 you can buy an investment report here, which i quickly found by browsing at finance.yahoo.com. There will exist a lot of investment reports, behind paywalls for the most part. There will be some national news coverage in Wall Street Journal and other sources, from time to time. And as a major employer and lender in its area, there will exist plenty of local news coverage. --do ncr am 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - ....none of which you've shown. It's not enough to say "well of course these sources exist...somewhere...". I'm sure the 10-K is incredibly detailed, but it's also neither independent nor third-party in nature. --Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Google Finance's summary, at https://www.google.com/finance?q=jaxb, and Yahoo Finance's profile at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=JAXB suffice on their own to meet wp:GNG. Third party. Reliable. Clicking on the link for investor reports from the Yahoo profile currently leads you to list of 10 available investor reports during last five weeks alone, all substantially about the firm. By the nature of U.S. public companies' regulation and the vast investor interest in information about them, plus market forces that respond to the investor interest, any public company in the U.S. obviously meets Wikipedia notability. --do ncr am 16:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, they absolutely don't; are you kidding? Third party, yes. Reliable, no - they consist exclusively of information sourced from other locations, which then have to be traced back. Heck, the only piece of prose on the google page is sourced from a Reuters page that's generated for any publicly-listed company, from information provided by that company. If you think publicly-listed companies are notable by default, go propose an amendment to the company notability guidelines. --Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I won't keep replying, but want to observe you are not changing your mind, when I did provide sources that you asked for. Also, I didn't participate in any past debate about notability of NYSE- and NASDAQ-listed public companies, but find my way to wp:LISTED which refers to that, suggesting there were plenty others having my views, and just suggesting diplomatically that while it is reasonable to presume plenty of sourcing will exist, any individual case can be resolved by just demonstrating the sources (avoiding the debate about all such firms). I have done that.
        
        And, I simply don't get what you question in the Google/Reuters profile, for example. Do you disbelieve a statement like "The Bank is a community-oriented savings bank engaged primarily in the business of attracting retail deposits from the general public in its market area and using such funds, together with borrowings and funds from other sources, to originate mortgage loans secured by one- to four-family residential real estate, commercial and agricultural real estate and home equity loans." Do you think that or any other statement is not factual? Do you seriously believe the bank is lying about that, and others are repeating it? In a business environment where factual misstatements would have big monetary consequences in shareholder lawsuits? I think you and I are coming from very different places, which is okay, you can believe what you want to and so will I. You can reply back but I probably won't comment further. Thanks. --do ncr am 23:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Itex Corporation[edit]

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

The article seems a classic case of WP:ARTSPAM - I have looked and can't find any evidence that it is inherently notable. It was first flagged in 2009, doesn't seem to have any significant work done on it since, has had no improvement of content that would make it WP:NPOV, and seems like an advert for search engine placement purposes. Orderinchaos 17:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 6 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject of the article fails WP:NCORP. Reuters source is a press release, therefore doesn't contribute to establish notability. Other sources lead no where, some home page of some websites, some goes unreachable. There are two links to Securities and Exchange Commission, reliable sources, but it doesn't help to establish notability of the subject as well. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 5.0 (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 19:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

This page is created in violation of WP:PTM and disseminates information that are not endorsed by any reliable source, i.e. I am not aware of any source in existence that uses "Windows 5.0" phrase to refer to version five of "Windows CE" or "Windows Mobile".

If the above was true, the solution would have been to add the source to Windows CE 5.0 and Windows Mobile 5.0 articles; only then the disambiguation page could be created. However, so far as the verifiability goes, the only operating system that introduces itself as "Microsoft Windows [Version 5.0.2600]" is Windows 2000.Codename Lisa (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 7 March 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. More or less useless. I don't think it's hurting anything, but it's not really helping, either. We already redirect this search term to the most likely target. I don't see much point in noting that other versions of operating systems with the same brand also have comparable version numbers. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NRP and WP:PTM. Doesn't seem to be useful at all, really. ansh666 04:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

APL Materials[edit]

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

PROD removed by (COI) article creator. PROD reason stated was: "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." ~~PROD reason still stands, hence:~~ ~~Delete~~. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely baffled. The journal is already included in Current Contents and the Science Citation Index Expanded. Being included this fast is exceptional. I am withdrawing the nom. --Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo Pictures[edit]

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

Like Phoenix Games, to which Dingo has worked with, there aren't any noteworthy mentions of the company in major news or animation sites, only anecdotal forum posts and snippets of their works on YouTube. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and unsourceable: a Google search just finds images of, or articles about, dingoes. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Searching for "dingo pictures" animation yields results related to the animation outfit in question, but practically all of them are anecdotal mentions of the company or "YouTube Poop" videos lampooning Dingo's animated features, and there's no third-party coverage or news reports on major media outlets or animation news sites - it's so obscure that not even the Big Cartoon DataBase has an entry on Dingo. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry Bearian but just as did the nom, I was able to find sources... such as The Drone (magazine) describing the company in an article titled "Dingo Pictures: The Worst Animated Films Ever Made". Animation Source tells how crappy the animations are and how they consist of lots of 30-minute films obtainable only by watching in within a video game they released. Cartoon Brew tells us even more about how this company's animations are poor efforts that "liberally rips off character designs from various Disney films." There are other such brief pannings of this company, whose only (limited) coverage is for how bad they are. Not quite bad enough to get major coverage. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't even found any press releases from the company, either. If they did, and I mean if, score a major lawsuit from let's say Disney or any other studio they plagiarised their works on (or if they were involved in a different but related incident), or if a media critic from Kotaku chanced upon Dingo's works and made a (scathing) critique and got mainstream attention, that's the time an article about the company can be written. As of now, well, let's just say that them ripoff artists are way too obscure to deserve a page. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're in agreement. Ripping off others is not in and of itself notable. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blake, thanks for doing more searching than is even reasonable, going beyond the call of duty. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neil McBrien[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. Marked for notability 4 years ago. Unremarkable career. Nothing in Australian search engine trove. LibStar (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a mid-tier Australian public servant. I'm sure he was a lovely guy but I can't see there is any way he could be considered notable by our standards. Stalwart111 15:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor civil servant and secondary education official.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Byrne[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenix down (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Strain[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - an article that probably should have been created while WP:SKATE members were on a BLP spree last year. The guy had a regular column (if you can call it that) in Thrasher and his "Murk Avenue" stuff appeared in Slap Magazine. There's also coverage in Transworld Magazine, The Source, Complex, the New York Daily News, Media Bistro and passing mentions on CNN and in the Huffington Post relating to the Ice Cube stuff. I'd say he passes WP:GNG fairly easily. Stalwart111 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much more likely thought is, that WP:SKATE did not include this man, as he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Most mentions are in connection with "It Was a Good Day". I have added all sources listed above. They are essentially all only relaying the WP:SPS posted by Strain on Tumblr and hyping it up. Hardly significant coverage. Try to take away that story and look at the experimental result. The Skateboarding part is poorly sourced. Part of it relies on WP:SYNTH. Apart from the Junkie Monkeys source, it is all incidental and trivial mentions and leaves me with no impression of notability. The Stand-up comedy part is about as close to an unsourced claim as it gets. We are no way near "passes WP:GNG fairly easily" here. Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, being an active member of said project and an active participant in that effort, I can tell you exactly what I did and didn't include and why and inventing some alternate consideration I might have had in mind is a pointless exercise. The Ice Cube related stuff includes his initial analysis, subsequent denials, further subsequent acceptance of the assertions and finally an event with Ice Cube and the subject. Each aspect was individually covered in reliable sources. Your effort to tag-bomb the article to support your effort here (which included nominating something a few hours after it was created) is fairly transparent. You even tagged something from Transworld as "self published". It's obviously created by the subject but you and I cannot upload things to the Transworld site and publish them. There's no way that's "self published" when an independent content editor has made an editorial decision to host that content and claim it as their own. It's not a link from their site to YouTube - they have published the content. The selection of sources posted above is exactly that - a selection. There are dozens of reliable sources available, many of which you would have seen when conducting your checks per WP:BEFORE. The subject has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. What else is required? Stalwart111 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a new poster I wondered why those sources were not credible as there is no way to self post on Thrasher, Transworld, Hubba Wheels etc or even the link to his comedian profile with Flappers Comedy Club. You may go on Flappers comedy club's website if you wish and try to set up a fake profile. It is impossible because the only way to be added to their database is if you have been booked and performed there previously you are then added to that database for further booking, showing that he has in fact been booked at Flappers and not a self post. Also to add to "notability" I just added to his biography a link to the Make-A-Wish foundations South Florida chapter who had a kid in 2010 from Florida that requested to meet him, Make-A-Wish posted along with the request fulfilled a photo of the kid (Alex) and Donovan after they flew Alex to Los Angeles to meet him. Make-A-Wish kids don't really use their one wish to request to meet anyone if they have no notibility of any kind. User:Catpiccatpic 12:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding them per WP:BURDEN. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - adding to what Stalwart111 mentioned, Donovan also was of one of the original members of one of biggest websites in skateboarding "The Berrics" with a very popular web series "Buttery Ass Mondays" and has been credited in the skateboarding community as inventing many tricks such as the "Grape Flip" and "Shuv Late Bigspins" among others. catpiccatpic 1:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)— catpiccatpic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The links to videos on The Berries do not work for me. I did however find two tricks on www.skaterevolution.com that give credit to Strain, and as they are briefly mentioned in other places, I have added them. The Shuv Late Bigspins I can't find. Catpiccatpic has disclosed here that she is the younger sister of Strain. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is irrelevant to notability. Stalwart111 14:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 22:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Benway[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT... non-notable broadcaster. JMHamo (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable references to meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it's a new article, I think it's unreferenceable fancruft ("multi-talented"), or OR. — Wylie pedia 14:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: miserably fails WP:GNG. Some parts seem unverifiable. I suspect a conflict of interest as the creator, User:Disposable420, seems to be a single purpose account. BethNaught (talk) 17:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 22:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggurat (chess engine)[edit]

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

No claim of notability. A rather weak playing strength, as evidenced by CCRL.[11] GregorB (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, ranked 267 out of 267 on CCRL list. No references establish notability, and the article was probably started by the author of the program. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - chess engine software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search revealed no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 22:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

مهرداد ضمیری مروی زاده[edit]

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

Nonsense, not notable, and 0 references. also in Persian, not English Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you read Farsi? The Google translation is gibberish but that doesn't mean anything. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although the problem is that there is still 0 references, and not notable. I think this is a test page. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Until people can figure out what the subject would be in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a person's name: Mehrdad Zamiri Marvizadeh. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Deletion of articles created on this Wikipedia on account of being written in a language other than English follows a process explained WP:PNT. Articles are typically listed there for up to two weeks and, if not removed on account of having been deleted for some other reason or having been translated or redirected, they are then typically PRODded. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I translated it and Googled the name, and found no notable historical Records, Just another person... ...Not notable, did I mention he was born back in 1338? Happy_Attack_Dog "The Wikipedians best friend" (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in Farsi articles are usually given based on the Solar Hijri calendar It's currently 1392. —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I read the translation, he's a musician whose notability is not shown. One record issued, and the group he's in was only formed last year. No mention of where they have toured ('wandered'). No references. When you get lots about the early days of a performer who is only 22, it means there is nothing more important to say. Padding. Peridon (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW The opening says he was born in 1370, not 1338. Peridon (talk) 14:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1370 AH is about 1950 AD.--Auric talk 11:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow close. This is a bit early, but the consensus seems to be clear that this is too soon for a separate article at this time. I won't redirect this, as we already have a functional redirect at The Lego Movie 2. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lego Movie 2 (2017)[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails WP:CRYSTAL at this moment with very few details known, and as such is not worth an article of its own (a mention on Lego Movie will suffice). Passengerpigeon (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFF. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Crystal, also only source appears to be a Russian language news site Elassint ^Hi 17:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect/Merge for now to The Lego Movie#Sequel where production and plans for a sequel can be spoken about in context. To politely disagree with Elassint, we do have multiple reliable sources speaking toward its pre-production.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]et al And to agree with the nom, it's TOO SOON for a separate article, but expanding coverage allows that it can be spoken of somewhere even when its own article is premature. Robsinden? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC) Struck See below. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Rebuild (chortle) if/when it's actually going to be released. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per Schmidt Orser67 (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Lego Movie#Sequel. Too early yet for an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a redirect in place from The Lego Movie 2, this is not a plausible search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I missed that it was a duplication. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Struck my previous "!vote". Captain Assassin! created the first article, RHaworth moved it into the Captain's sandbox. Anthony Appleyard moved it back into article space, and then the Captain merged information into into the target and set the redirect himself. [20] The original redirect preserved a far better article than this sorry stub, and I agree that the title version being discussed here is a poor search subject. Heck, even "Lego-Movie-sequel" gives far better results. The current redirect already and properly sends readers to the best place for this to be written of. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Last Cab to Darwin (stage play)#Film adaptation. (non-admin closure) ansh666 04:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last Cab to Darwin[edit]

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

Film has not entered main production (filming) and does not have major coverage, does not meet WP:NFF. I suggest a redirect to Jeremy Sims. BOVINEBOY2008 12:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom to Jeremy Sims. This is still TOO SOON and we do have a decent place where it can be spoken of. Allow undeletion or recreation once notability standards are met. It might be eminently possible before having Last Cab to Darwin (film) to have an article on the award-winning and much-covered stage-play which inspired the film... ie: Last Cab to Darwin (stage play). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 19:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to new article on the notable play at the section covering the screen adaptation: Last Cab to Darwin (stage play)#Film adaptation. Undo redirection once the film meets WP:NFF (paragraph 3). Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -I would now support a redirect as proposed by Schmidt, . Thankyou for your work in creating an article on the stage play! It was actually a project I had planned after discovering an article did not yet exist when writing the film article. Unfortunately, due to work and study commitments, I just didn't have the time. I support this redirect as it makes more sense than just redirecting to Jeremy Sims which has minimal mention of the upcoming film. Although, I still feel due to the controversial themes and significant mainstream media coverage about casting and the project in general warrants a standalone article about the film. If keep is not the consensus I would request the film article be moved into the draft space or incubated so it does not need to be recreated from scratch once photography begins and a release date is announced. Dfadden (talk) 07:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me... any redirection preserves the history of your work on the film article and the redirect can be reversed (with content and history returned) when WP:NF is met. In the meanwhile, you could always continue building on the film article in a user sandbox. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences . Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Annual D.I.C.E Awards[edit]

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

Total absence of evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences - The facts are correct and notable but already discussed in the awarding entity's article and this split is entirely unneeded. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Total absence of evidence? Try Googling "D.I.C.E Awards". There is an important distinction that should be drawn between what some believe to be the WP:V threshold ("all information must be verified") and the actual WP:V threshold ("all information must be verifiable"). We don't remove content because it isn't perfect. We improve it if we can. See also WP:BEFORE. -Thibbs (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sal - this is essentially an unnecessary WP:CFORK of the AIAS article, and besides, it wasn't even known as the DICE Awards back then. ansh666 04:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The deletion nomination, as Thibbs points out, doesn't make any sense, but I also agree with the sentiment that this was a split that didn't need to happen. Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7: No indication of notability. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kamlesh Kumar Gautam, Ghaziabad[edit]

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

Submission is about a person does not meet notability guidelines Ninney (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Submission created by SPA Kavikamleshgautam doesn't meet notability standard. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - unreferenced BLP article of unclear notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unreferenced and no evidence of greater influence. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article creator is here for self promotion only and has been reported at ARV. Article is pure self promotion. Safiel (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article is now at Kamlesh Kumar Gautam. Safiel (talk) 04:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Autobiography with no third party sources. I actually tagged for speedy based on this. Author is trying to add himself to a few lists as well. Turgan ^Talk 05:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator is now permanently blocked for self promotion. Safiel (talk) 05:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I believe that undoing the previous closure and relisting the AfD were not good moves by Lankiveil. Firstly, there is abundant consensus to delete here (and there still is after the relist). Secondly, per WP:RELIST, this is not an appropriate situation for a relist. Relists are for situations where there is not already clear consensus, not for situations where you think the consensus is wrong. Thirdly, the previous closer's decision to revert the closure is essentially a WP:SUPERVOTE. He looked at the sources that were presented, and concluded that all of the other delete voters "might have gotten it wrong in this case". The closing admin's job is not to determine whether the voters have come to the "correct" decision, rather it is to determine if there is a consensus among the voters. This is because admins are not inherently smarter than non-admins, nor are they necessarily more apt to make a better decision about the fate of an article. The consensus here is clearly to delete the article; any further appeals should take place at WP:DRV. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 22:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wissner-Gross[edit]

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

Likely does not meet notability guidelines (WP:PROF specifically). No obvious significant coverage from independent sources, other than about a TED talk he did, no major career awards yet, per Xxanthippe, his Google Scholar h-index is only 5, indicating no significant impact. He may be likely to become notable, but it doesn't seem like he already is. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC) 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 05:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with inadequate cites. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promising, but way too early. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, has had a very good career trajectory so far, if he continues at the same rate he'll probably meet WP:PROF at a point 15-25 years from now. WP:TOOSOON. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Classic WP:TOOSOON: WoS shows 40 citations (h-index 4), which is not surprising for a good post-doc on a notability trajectory. Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You should not vote multiple times and then not sign – it gives the perception of rigging the discussion. Please go back and sign each of your entries and remove all but one of your !votes. Incidentally, 112 citations and h-index of 8 falls pretty far below the conventional threshold for passing WP:PROF. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Strong keep. May not meet WP:PROF, but meets WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. There are numerous articles from separate publications that cover him and his work in depth: starting with BusinessWeek and the New York (both very in-depth articles). Also articles in Tech Crunch, Technewsworld.com, BBC and so on. Last few sources aren't as in depth, but taken together, especially with first two, suggests that he meets notability requirements. mikeman67 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are trivial mentions and anyway are WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Not sure how the BusinessWeek or New Yorker articles are trivial - he's literally the subject of both of those articles (particularly BW, which is a profile of him). Those articles are also 12 years apart, and about different topics. But his notability doesn't come from either of those papers/inventions - articles also discusses his unique academic accomplishments. Not really a "one event" or news sort of occurrence. I think there's more than enough coverage to justify an article. Also disagree that BLP1E applies, since he's probably a high-profile individual (he did the interview with BW, for one, which disqualifies him from BLP1E). mikeman67 (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"unique academic accomplishments"? He's just a standard post-doc. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Do standard post-docs get New Yorker and Businessweek profiles now? mikeman67 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the New Yorker article, but I can't see how you can get notability from their statement "There is no reason to take [Wissner-Gross's work] seriously as a contribution, let alone a revolution, in artificial intelligence unless and until there is evidence that it is genuinely competitive with the state of the art in A.I. applications. For now, there isn’t." -- 101.119.14.120 (talk) 13:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with the success or failures of his work, it simply has to do with coverage. I still fail to see how all of this coverage isn't notable according to WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Edited the article to reflect his broad press coverage [21]. Also, Google Scholar shows 112 citations with a much higher h-index of 8. Finally, according to his CV at [22], he hasn't been a postdoc since 2010. bwentworth (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC). — Bwentworth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wissner-Gross's own Google Scholar page does indeed show 112 citations, but only because it lists several publications for which Wissner-Gross is not one of the authors (!). -- 101.119.14.65 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. Appears to be known only for a single meaningless concatenation of symbols with the visual appearance of a mathematical equation. Despite what appears to be very heavy self-promotion, I don't think that should be good enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability isn't based on whether editors like or dislike an article subject's theories. It is instead established based on coverage in reliable sources, which he clearly has. mikeman67 (talk) 16:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to have misread my argument. I'm not claiming that he's non-notable because he's doing bad science, or because he's a self-promoter. It's because there's only one notable aspect to the subject (the equation) that would be better represented by an article about the equation (if we posit it to be notable) rather than about the person. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Businessweek article was about nanotechnology. Most of the other articles had to do with a theory about carbon emissions through internet searches (those from around 2009). That's at least 3 separate theories that generated news coverage about him, and separated in time by around 20 years. mikeman67 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF per low h-index of 5. The self-promotion, press releases, and non-notable prizes don't contribute to WP:GNG either. -- 101.119.14.65 (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far short of academic notability, and could not find independent verification of WP:GNG either.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To me, major profiles in BusinessWeek and the New Yorker, as well as articles about Wissner-Gross and his work in Tech Crunch, Technewsworld.com, BBC io9, CNN, Forbes, The Telegraph ThinkProgress PC World etc. etc. clearly meet the WP:GNG. Certainly I've seen articles kept with far less press in national media. Also, I disagree with claims that he is notable for a single event, when the articles are from a period of nearly 20 years and from at least three separate theories (nanotechnology, carbon emissions, and the physics theory). mikeman67 (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The confusion about what theory is does not serve your point, though I understand from the above that you are acting as the subject's promotion agent, not as an expert in his area of work. But even from the standpoint of promotion, I do not see "major profiles" here. Most of the material is not subject profile, but debunking of his odd scientific claims. Cranks and oddball scientists tend to elicit this type of coverage, sometimes for the better, but it would take more to establish worthiness for an encyclopedia. As for the profiles, they do not add up to scientific impact or general notability. By the way, in listing sources, blog entries should not be confused with the real thing. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 19:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you'd assume some good faith on my part. I don't know what promotion agent means, but I can assure you I've never heard of Wissner-Gross before seeing this AfD. Please take a look at WP:N - notability has nothing to do with the validity, scientific veracity, or legitimacy of a creator's work. It solely has to do with whether someone has received been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Whether or not an article's work has been the target of criticism is totally irrelevant to their significance. This, of course, would be an impossible standard for wikipedia editors to try to uphold. And again, I completely disagree with your characterization of his work as "odd scientific claims." I'd suggest you read the articles, as much of the articles criticize the interpretation of his work (and also I wonder how you can describe an MIT and Harvard research fellow as an oddball and crank scientist). mikeman67 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do not see significant coverage of the subject, keeping in mind that we are talking about minor variants of high-brow "sources" in some cases. Also, do not confuse the visibility of the ideas with the notability of the subject, all the more as the most visible idea is not solely the subject's creation. If an idea is notable - and certainly here it behooves one to be clear about what a "theory" or other "contribution" is - it might deserve its own page; though the criticism of the subject's ideas is not good news in this case, as it speaks to poor science as well as poor reuse by others. As a scientist, though, it's a case of WP:TOOEARLY on the objective record.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess if the BBC, New Yorker, Businessweek and so on aren't reliable in your mind, then I'm not sure which sources you would accept as reliable. That kind of coverage usually easily meets WP:BIO. As to your criticism about the science, I'd again point out that is totally irrelevant as to notability or verifiability (go see Johann Conrad Dippel, among many other examples). Also note he won the Hertz Foundation prize for his doctoral research, which according to the wikipedia page is most prestigious graduate fellowship in science and engineering (and perhaps qualifies under WP:PROF#C2 as well). mikeman67 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is more subjective rather than per wiki policy, but he was an invited speaker to a conference I'm attending and I relied on wiki for information on him. He is definitely being treated as notable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaananc (talk • contribs) 00:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Apologies for bombarding this page with comments, but I've edited the page to add the additional sources I found for the AfD and believe it now meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO (and suspect the awards may qualify for WP:PROF#C2. mikeman67 (talk) 17:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this list contains awards at the undergraduate level, which by convention (established some years ago), do not count toward WP:PROFc2. Moreover, some of this is misleading, for example the "Dan David Prize Scholarship" actually links to the Dan David Prize, an international, high-honorarium award for established researchers. Agricola44 (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added 20 new examples of significant independent coverage. Notability guidelines should be satisfied at this point. -- 107.107.184.127 (talk) 4:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.64.121 (talk) — 107.77.64.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Great, the article has now becomes this person's CV. Agricola44 (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah not sure why it was edited like this, definitely not my intention. I have no idea why the IP removed discussion of notability from news coverage and some minor criticism. Doesn't look great right now. mikeman67 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I had closed this discussion as "delete" based upon the arguments presented here. However, after a discussion on my talkpage I feel that the participants have not adequately addressed the question of the sources from BusinessWeek and The New Yorker, which are substantial, independent, and appear in reliable sources. As such, I have undone my close and relisted this discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I think he has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources Orser67 (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TNT appears to apply. Someone source based and non-promotional is permissable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lazar Sakan[edit]

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

No clear notability. Normally I would have listed this for Prod or even Speedy, but given the Serbian sources, it might need wider attention. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Judging on the sources, he is notable enough, more as a TV host, presenter and model than a marketing guy. However, the article is one of worst puff pieces I saw recently (and I WP:DGAF about it to work on it), so I'd apply WP:TNT. Ditto for his father, Dragan Sakan, who is more notable, but the article is an even worse puff piece. No such user (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 11 March 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, Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marketing geniuses are not per se notable. Considering all the puffery, sourcing needs to be excellent. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - just look for Lazar Sakan, there are so many pages abnout him on google, notable person. Article need more sources, but its ok for stay in encyclopedia. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 16:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 21:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gloving[edit]

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

No indication of any real notability, no significant attention in reliable, independent sources (not webfora and the like). Fram (talk) 07:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phenomenon is real (for a while I thought it may be a hoax), but I could not find anything in terms of coverage that would count towards WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this does appear to be a thing, but I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources - just YouTube/Twitter/Instagram/Reddit/etc. Gong show 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Windows 8.1#Update 1. On second thought, I changed the redirect to Windows 8.1#Updates, since the "Update 1" section doesn't exist. ‑Scottywong | confabulate _ 21:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.1 Update 1[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 07:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 07:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a biased content fork of Windows 8.1 § Update. It is partly copy & paste from that section (without attribution) and partly unreferenced ... stuff. I attempted to ~~merge~~redirect per WP:DUPLICATE but the author reverted on purely bureaucratic grounds. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, There was no copy and pasted content when creating the Windows 8.1 update 1 article. The article is written with facts from well known sources like Paul Thurrott from Winsupersite. I believe since anyone can edit article on Wikipedia, the article should be improved rather than deleted. There are many Microsoft sub articles on wikipedia that seem trivial but aren't deleted. I dont understand how the Windows 8.1 Update 1 article is biased also, because its written mainly in a neutral point of view. Windows 8.1 Update 1 is a significant update and is worthy of an article for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1 SOP for minor service packs for Windows OS articles; we don't need a separate article regarding what reads as a service pack. Nate • (chatter) 08:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Changed to 'Update 1' redirect per Jimthing's proper suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1 (better to name the update in it's own section on Windows 8.1, so no confusion is caused on which update is which in future). There is no need for a whole new article on WP to service such a small software update. Especially as users looking for info on the update on WP, would highly likely come to either the Windows 8 or Windows 8.1 pages to find it, plus said update info is not big enough to warrant a page of its own, so can fit on Windows 8.1 quite easily without losing value – with the aid of the Windows 8.1#Update 1 redirect. Jimthing (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Windows 8.1 has an article dedicated to it, and yet its only an upgrade to Windows 8 and isn't a new version of Windows. Windows 8.1 Update 1 is an update for Windows 8.1 much like Windows 8.1 was for Windows 8 because the build number didn't change. I strongly believe Windows 8.1 Update 1 shouldn't be merged because it is a sizable update (approx. 700mb) and there is plentiful of sources that state the significance of the update. If Windows 8.1 Update 1 is nominated to be deleted, then Windows 8.1 should be as well.--Polloloco51 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we went by update size alone than every XP SP would have it's own article as they were each roughly a gig. Yet they all fit nicely under Windows XP#Service packs under their own subheadings. As for 8.1 being an upgrade to Windows 8 (note that arguments based on how other articles exist should generally be avoided in an AfD); looking over it, there is serious overlap, it might not stand an AfD actually. --CyberXRef^☎ 07:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the Windows 8.1 article, Update 1 is described as a major update, therefore its more sensible to for Update 1 to have it's own separate article. Also, more information will be coming out regarding the update and the Windows 8.1 Update 1 article has potential to be expanded.--Polloloco51 (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Windows 8.1#Update. WP:DUPLICATE is not the only problem. There is WP:GEVAL problem and this article has zero chance of ever getting to class C state. When push for expansion comes to shove, the article naturally becomes a host for all sorts of non-encyclopedic content if not merged or deleted. We really mustn't spawn an article the moment Microsoft decides to pick its nose. The fact that taskbar now comes up everywhere doesn't really have due weight for overcoverage. Fleet Command (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sources that are provided in the Windows 8.1 Update 1 article like ZDNET and Paul Thurrott of Winsupersite are highly credible and reliable sources. I think the article should be improved and as time progresses more concrete info will come out and the article will improve. I would not call sources like Winsupersite and ZDNET minority point of view, because they have been highly accurate in the things they report in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polloloco51 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is a hotfix, essentially Windows 8.1.1, as such it is not independently notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Windows 8.1#Update 1; the update does merit a mention but it doesn't really deserve this kind of over-coverage. Moving the content back to the Windows 8.1 article makes the most sense. --CyberXRef^☎ 07:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per ViperSnake. Not supporting keeping a redirect because this is an uncommon search term. Reh man 13:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Windows 8.1. Keep the content, but we don't need separate articles for individual operating system updates. Elassint ^Hi 00:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect as above; search term is not absurdly uncommon and the bar is very low for redirects, so keep the redirect. Neutrality^talk 06:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 21:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Galura[edit]

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

Artist is not yet well-known to the degree required by Wikipedia. There is the detailed coverage by the Philippine Daily Inquirer from July 2001 but no other dedicated description of the artist in reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 06:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from the Philippine Daily Inquirer exhibition preview article I am seeing minimal coverage. Highbeam, whose archive includes several Philippines newspapers, turns up only a passing mention in a list of artists in a 2004 group show. That is insufficient to meet the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of WP:NOTABILITY. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 18:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Black[edit]

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

Artist is not described in WP:SECONDARY sources, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. The article appears to be promotional, using only primary sources. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not promotinal, it is a Legitimate article. Mark.f.reyes 08:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.f.reyes (talk • contribs)

He may not be known worldwide yet. But he is an artist. All the informations in the article are all true. I personally interviewed him. For when should we create an article about someone? when they are already dead? Mark.f.reyes 08:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Delete per nom. When? When they meet WP:NOTABILITY. Johnbod (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy to ask someone to be interviewed if that someone is already a big time celebrity. Mark.f.reyes 10:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.f.reyes (talk • contribs)
Delete: no indication of notability; only sources are social media; no finds in secondary sources. BethNaught (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to publish your interviews with rising celebrities who have not come to be noticed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of WP:NOTABILITY. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then, what is wikipedia used for? Mark.f.reyes 03:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.f.reyes (talk • contribs)

See the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and what Wikipedia is not. (Also, ensure you sign your posts by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) BethNaught (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

snow delete blatantly fails WP:BIO. looks self promotional. LibStar (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Move to Tamil language films released during Diwali. Some cruft also need to be excised until only a sourced article remains, Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepavali releases - Tamil[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Extremely trivial and NPOV-violating article with less sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tamil cinema is a major film industry, and since there is a consistent pattern of releasing a disproportionate number of its films in conjunction with the Deepavali festival, then that is notable and not at all trivial. I do not see any violations of NPOV, but I agree that the sourcing should be improved. Ideally, every entry should be cited to a reliable source that says that the film was released in conjunction with Deepavali, not just relying on calendar dates. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a question: why not make this a category? IE, "Category:Tamil language films released during Diwali"? This will always be a constantly growing list, so eventually even if we keep it, this will eventually become too unwieldy. Plus if we should have an article on the Indian film industry during Diwali, it should encompass all of the films released rather than just one language. I say that if possible, we find enough sources to make an article about the Diwali film release season, then include the "see also" section for the categories. We can specify it for languages and for general releases. I know that some would argue that we should then include films that happen to coincide with the Diwali season, but a pre-requisite for the page should be an article that specifically says that the films released outside of India should have a source that says that it's a Diwali release. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not a bad idea. If the article is kept, Tamil language films released during Diwali would make for a better name anyway. Stalwart111 06:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the name change- that sounds and flows a lot better. I do think that there should be sources to justify an article on the films released during Diwali. Or at the very least, we should have enough sources to justify an article on holiday release films in general with a subsection for specific holidays in each country. After all, each country has their own respective mainstream holidays and it's fairly common to expect specifically themed films to release during that time or for the bigger ticket items to release during specific holidays. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, in Australia it's Boxing Day. Stalwart111 09:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us keep this and yes, as far as refrence are concerned, we need to add more and I request other users to contribute too, A beginning is always good. Rajeshbieee (talk) 12:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Stalwart's suggestion, and the category that Tokyogirl proposes can be created too, per WP:CLT. I don't see WP:POV anywhere either. ansh666 04:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about converting it to a category named "Tamil films released during Diwali"? Bcos countless Tamil films have released on Diwali and it is nearly impossible to list them all in one article. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 votes make a serious attempt at demonstrating that the subject passes WP:GNG. ‑Scottywong | chat _ 18:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teaguepocalypse[edit]

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

Non-notable film. A total of six Google hits, including this article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a private corporation decides what's notable and what's not?189.203.252.101 (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems exceedingly unlikely that a film would be the subject of much buzz in today's media without Google having found any of it, don't you agree? —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This film's website has had a couple hundred hits, contrary to the "6 hits" claimed in this accusation. This accusation is unfair, because this wikipedia page has only been published for 15 minutes, so what did you expect? Of course it will only have 6 views within the first 15 minutes of its publication. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote six Google hits. I didn't say anything about page views of your website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This film is NOTABLE it has an official website and official MERCHANDISE. The article is currently incomplete and will be added on to within the coming week until it is complete. Please do not delete this page. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A website and merchandise aren't the ingredients of notability. See the general notability guidelines and the guidelines for films. Google failing to find any independent mentions of the film, let alone substantive coverage in reliable sources, indicates that this film has not achieved note. That being the case, the completeness of the article isn't a consideration. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you think this film doesn't exist or what, but I can assure you it does. Why don't you look at the trailers on the website. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't express any doubt about the film's existence. The issue is its lack of notability as defined under Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it has received notability. According to you, 6, and to me, hundreds. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines to which I have tried to draw your attention. Mentions of the film on the film's own websites, for example, doesn't contribute to notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so obsessed with taking this article down? Pcasey14 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this film falls short of Wikipedia's standards for being the subject of an article. No obsession is involved. Wikipedia does have standards. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you haven't noticed, the movie is now recognized by Wikipedia. It must certainly be official now. Pcasey14 (talk) 03:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See hmmm... Wikipedia contradicts itself. It is a very notable source, and yet people can make these articles and then get accused of publishing non-notable stuff, when their "stuff" is on Wikipedia... a very notable source. So based on this site's rules you can't take down my article because you'd be breaking your own rules. Pcasey14 (talk) 04:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read the guidelines through, particularly the part about substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources. And, really, you're going to argue that anything on Wikipedia meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion on Wikipedia by virtue of being on Wikipedia? Goodnight. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! You can't beat that argument, bro. My article is safe. Pcasey14 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepTo the administrators reading this, please don't delete this page on account that there is a fatal flaw in your deletion rules on notability. This article's topic is recognized by the very notable reference known as Wikipedia, therefore it has a very good notability and must therefore be kept because it now conforms with your policies on notability. Pcasey14 (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is expressly not a reliable source. "Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose." As I said, you haven't read through the guidelines. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepBut this article is on a form of probation, and there is no statement in those rules saying an article on probation from wikipedia can't be used. It doesn't say "any form of" wikipedia articles, it only says "wikipedia articles", which, being so unclear, refers generally to only a normal wikipedia article. 71.213.158.157 (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Simple as that. Have a read of some of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria before trying again. And the above is just a spectacular waste of time. None of that is going to "save" your article because none of it is based on policy. Stalwart111 06:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stalwart111's correct analysis and despite the arrant nonsense offered by the forceful voice to keep. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously not notable. By the way, Largo, you're being trolled. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wonderful if we had a speedy deletion category for this, but we don't, so I'll just have to say Delete per WP:NF. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:A11. Note that the website mentions buying T-Shirts from a "Philip Casey". --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability, as stated by others. Some background reading: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia Orser67 (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Um guys I don't know what the big fuss is about. It's a project a bunch of friends and I are doing at school. We're not trolling you, we're just trying to make this more official. We're not trying to "advertise" or whatever, who on earth would ever search "Teaguepocalypse"? Advertising here would be pointless. This film is notable, by our school's standards. We would appreciate it if you guys would stop harassing us about this. If you're so uptight about people making articles on Wikipedia, then don't let just anyone come on here and make one. You claim you have policies when it is clear that anyone can come on here and so easily break them. I think you should just be glad we aren't just another group of teenagers who write inappropriate stuff on articles or make inappropriate new articles. This article is harmless and isn't hurting you guys at all. Your jobs are to stop those who wish to hurt the articles on this website, not spend your time harassing people who make articles that do nothing wrong, break no copyright rules, and include no foul language. Notability can't be truly measured because something can be notable on too many varying levels. Please just leave us alone.

Sincerely, the creators of this film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcasey14 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 March 2014

Well, this says it all. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We will try to get more notable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.158.157 (talk) 07:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a public bulletin board where you can write about a project you and a bunch of friends are doing at school. It's an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for making things "more official". A list of standards the article is in conformance with doesn't alter its nonconformance with the notability standards. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Userfy to creators if requested with a strong suggestion that they read WP:Wikipedia is not about YOU and WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:COI and WP:NOTPROMOTION. While appreciating a promise to "get more notable sources", experienced Wikipedia editors pretty much know how find suitable sources if they existed. Heck, if I could have found enough suitable to meet WP:NF, I would be advocating for a keep... but they do not (currently) exist... and for student films, they often do not become available. And guys... go read Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

__

Thank you so much Schmidt. You are the most helpful editor I have met here. Everyone else has been fairly rude on this subject and we appreciate your support in our endeavors. I can understand your doubts about the notability and we are very close to fixing it. 71.213.158.157 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Um, let me rephrase that for you. Wikipedia IS a public bulletin board that anybody can contribute to. That's the whole point of the website. If you can't understand that point, maybe you aren't fit to be deciding which articles stay or go. Yes, I understand it has standards and rules and that you guys try to enforce them. Are you guys even payed to do this or do you just log on and look at random pages and comment?

Note (a) the difference between "encyclopedia" (which this is) and "public bulletin board" (which this is not) and (b) the difference between who can contribute (anybody) and what can be contributed (articles appropriate for this encyclopedia, not just any old thing you feel like). Ironically, you claim to understand this in your fifth sentence in your immediately adjacent paragraph above, which contradicts the understanding you claim to have of the situation in your second and third sentences. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has come to our attention that articles should not be deleted if they can be edited to fix any rules they break. If this is true and you guys are all capable of editing this page, why have you not tried to do so? Can you attempt to do so? In the rules it says that IF a page can be edited to fix any broken rules, that should happen before it is deleted. Therefore, you can't delete this page until it has been edited to fit the rules, because it is possible for it to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.158.157 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of editing or "fixing" will resolve a lack of notability which is the standard by which things are included on Wikipedia or not. A lack of proficient writing can be fixed; a lack of notability can't. Stalwart111 06:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if the replacement parts are simply not available, it is impossible to fix something broken. And in recognizing your comment about what can be fixed, should be fixed... please trust that I for one have lots of of experience in fixing things seen as broken. If I (or others) thought this student project was salvable, we'd be fixing it. Let it be released. Let it get coverage in reliable sources (not blogs or student papers) and that could change. Luck, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think a WP:SNOW close or WP:SPEEDY deletion might be in order. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have submitted the information for this film to IMDB.com and it is currently under review. If it passes and is put up on IMDB.com, will that be notable enough? It should be more than notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.158.157 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:User-generated content. —Largo Plazo (talk) 05:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP(final) Now listen here. You asked for notability? We're giving it to you. IMDB is an authority in film titles, frankly a much higher authority than Wikipedia. We are getting our notability and that puts an end to this discussion. If our submission to IMDB is approved, and we meet all the requirements, we will not be breaking any more of your rules. 71.213.158.157 (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NO (final), per WP:NFILMS, "To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are so uptight about this, then please, instead of harassing us every time we do something that doesn't help us, tell us what sources ARE considered notable so we can research them. You people really aren't friendly and this reflects poorly on Wikipedia. Instead of letting you guys run around controlling this site Wiki should hire people to do this. Or at least hire someone to control you guys. The only person here who has offered any help is Schmidt. Pcasey14 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't "uptight" at all. We routinely delete hundreds of articles every day about non-notable topics. That's why this free encyclopedia has credibility and is the #5 website in the world. Insulting experienced editors won't help your cause. Instead, you should try actually reading and understanding the many links to helpful policies and guidelines that have been offered to you. Michael Q.Schmidt, probably our most respected active editor on film topics, asked you to read WP:NFILMS and WP:PRIMER. If you had read and understood them, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your film will be notable if and when it receives in-depth critical commentary in several independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it

ehhhh you seem pretty uptight... If this page is taken down we will put it back up after its release and when it has become more notable. The reason I say "uptight" is because unlike Schmidt you guys have too much an "attitude" when talking to us. It just feels like you look down on us as if you hold some sort of power over us. We don't mean it to be rude, its just that maybe in the future you guys could lighten up.

I am as cool as a cucumber, Pcasey14, and very much enjoying the work I do here to improve this encyclopedia. I tell you what, if your film gets the sort of coverage that makes it notable by Wikipedia standards, I will personally write a fully-compliant article about it, and make sure that it does not get deleted. That's a promise that you can take to the bank. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm not sure if i should be offended or happy about that haha. Well, I guess I'll have to take you up on that later on. Pcasey14 (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you answer our question? If everyone is saying delete, when can we expect our page to be deleted? Pcasey14 (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When an uninvolved administrator has the time to wade through this lengthy debate, the decision will be made. Most such debates last one week.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Haha so much for this article. This debate is NOT on our side :P well maybe we'll get a merciful admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcasey14 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stopps v. Just Ladies Fitness[edit]

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

Mostly per WP:NOTE. A brief search of Google news reveals no hits. Upon doing more research I see nothing to suggest that this tribunal decision received significant coverage. Additionally, this article is sourced with a single primary source, this tribunal decision. Viewing the article's history shows that this tribunal decision has been used to source various facts about Mr. Stopps to include his age and location in direct violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY which sates: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." Tiptoety ^talk 02:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this does not meet our notability requirements. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this for now. There are some reliable sources available for this, and I'd been meaning to hunt some down to add them to the article and see where that lands us, but I haven't had time to do so as of yet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims this "was significant in Canadian law because it found that a women-only admission policy of a public gym was not discrimination." Any legal textbooks have this case listed in them as significant? And is this what the courts found? Dream Focus 22:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 22:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Like the nominator, I am unable to find any sources that actually demonstrate that the case was as significant as the article claims. The only time I can find the case mentioned at all is as a very minor footnote from a presentation at a research conference. If any additional sources come up that do demonstrate notability, as Dream Focus suggested, I would be willing to change my vote, but as I was unable to do so, its Delete for now. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources work for me. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received significant coverage: The Vancouver Province, The Prince Arthur Herald, Only Magazine, Reuters (French), The Lethbridge Herald. Other offline sources available via WP:REX:

Boyle, Christine. "A Human Right to Group Self-Identification?", Canadian Journal of Women & the Law. 2011, Vol. 23 Issue 2, p488-518. (Database: EBSCO)
"Canadian guy fails in bid for discrimination", The Gold Coast Bulletin (November 25, 2006). (Database: EBSCO)
Jill St. Louis (November 21, 2006). "Human rights tribunal rules against man who wanted to join women-only gym", The Canadian Press. (Database: EBSCO)

--GreenC 02:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the threshold of notability per the sources provided above by User:Green Cardamom. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources indicate notability. James500 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged content with that of the UPT article, keeping this one. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 04:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II High School (Royersford, Pennsylvania)[edit]

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

The article for the Pope John Paul II High School in Upper Providence Township, PA is the same school. Cg41386 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Formula One Grand Prix Podiums[edit]

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

Unneccessary duplication/compilation of data which appears at List of Formula One Grand Prix winners, 1950 Formula One season, 1951 Formula One season, 1952 Formula One season etc Falcadore (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on crimes against grammar. There is no apostrophe in 1950s, 1960s, etc. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.QueenCake (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you guys even taking this nomination seriously? The nominator's argument quite blatantly fails WP:OTHERSTUFF and the first supporter's argument relates to something that could have been corrected in the time taken to write that argument. Tvx1 (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe we should have a list of winners as well as a list of podiums? Why not a list of top fives? Then we could have a list of top tens. Oooo, now we should have a list of just first and second. And aybe a list that just has the point scorers only. And...

Not only does OTHERSTUFF not apply (OTHERSTUFF refers to articles similar in concept, not duplication of content), but criteria 5 of WP:DEL-REASON - content forking speaks directly to this subject. --Falcadore (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did I vote "keep" here? No I didn't, so please do not accuse me of "believing" things. Regarding your recent argument, please read WP:RELAR. Tvx1 (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of a "?" is usually indicative of a question rather than an accusation. I was asking for a clarification of your comment, then adding illustration. I struggle to find how WP:RELAR applies as this is a bit closer than being related coverage, it's the same coverage. Essentially this would mean the content of List of Formula One Grand Prix winners is entirely encapsulated within List of Formula One Grand Prix Podiums. So this goes back to my original attempt at clarification. If a list of First places and First Second and Third places can exist as articles, what other variations can exist? If you would like to clarify your comment that would be appreciated. If you read more into it than that, then perhaps an "accusation" that a deletion request "not be treated seriously" and "blatantly fails" perhaps might sound something other than you intended. --Falcadore (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | comment _ 18:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Love (author, pedicabber)[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears not to meet the criteria listed at WP:BASIC, and per WP:BLP1E. PROD and PROD-2 were contested. VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to have had brief media exposure for wearing a pink outfit while riding a bicycle, but not significant coverage only passing mentions. The early college stuff is not notable. The book is not notable it's a self-published e-book (need multiple book reviews in reliable sources). -- GreenC 14:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article can be restored if circumstances change (i.e. if he actually gets minutes in a pro league). ‑Scottywong | spout _ 18:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume Hubert[edit]

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

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league Wgolf (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's been the back-up keeper on the bench in the last 9 matches for Standard Liège. As such, he will make an appearance sooner or later, meeting WP:GNG; as this is almost-certain, WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable. The danger of simply deleting, is that it will likely be recreated rather than restored, wasting editing time, and leading to a missing history, that is seldom restored in a timely fashion. In lieu of deletion, perhaps moving to draft space would be a better option. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trish Brown[edit]

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

extremely promotional article on a PR agent and local politician. I'm not sure if there might possibly be scope for a small article, but this is so full of minor accomplishments and personal claims for responsibility for major ones where she was just a press agent. President of a county school board, which is not necessarily much of a claim to notability.

The refs, as expected for someone with a local career, are all local, and most of them are based or PR as well. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability doesn't come from just being a county school board president, it comes from the events and backlash that ensued. The vote to include language that protected gay students and employees was controversial at the time and many papers and personalities in the area follow the issue (The Detroit News and Free Press aren't any different from the LA Times, Washington Post, etc. Mitch Album also talked about the issue (National writer, radio host).

Additionally, national gay rights groups and magazines also followed the issue. The funding raised for education was also directly related to her efforts through her various careers (Maybe the sources on the WCCCD info can be improved) - and I think 2 billion is a pretty significant number and saving a college that now serves roughly 75,000 students from closing is also notable.

So even though it is still a "local" political office according to Wikipedia, it has met notability requirement 3 for politicians.

I think the issue here might be more with some of the promotional tone. I'm a student and I wrote this to get practice writing articles. Let's work together to fix the issues because I would hate to see my work taken down :)

--Adamzien (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on GNG grounds seems to have coverage over an extended period of time. -- GreenC 14:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ‑Scottywong | express _ 18:15, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gaon (village)[edit]

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

incoherent guide Bhny (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at the moment the article does not contain encyclopedic information.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. → Call me Hahc21 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioCell Collagen[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. I can't find any significant coverage. References have been added since I PRODed it, but these are passing mentions. SmartSE (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (ping User:Smartse) - How do you perceive this seven page source (presently in the Wikipedia article) about the topic as only consisting of passing mentions? This is significant coverage.

Schwartz, Stephen R; Park, Joosang Park (July 2012). "Ingestion of BioCell Collagen, a novel hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage extract; enhanced blood microcirculation and reduced facial aging signs". Clinical Interventions in Aging. pp. 267–273. PMC 3426261. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That research was funded by the company and therefore is not independent. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Passes WP:GNG per~~ Some sources:

"Ingestion of BioCell Collagen, a novel hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage extract; enhanced blood microcirculation and reduced facial aging signs". Clinical Interventions in Aging.
"Effect of the Novel Low Molecular Weight Hydrolyzed Chicken Sternal Cartilage Extract, BioCell Collagen, on Improving Osteoarthritis-Related Symptoms: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial". Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry.
"Acute and subchronic oral toxicity studies in rats of a hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage preparation". Food and Chemical Toxicology.
"Effects of Resveratrol and Collagen Supplementation on Facial Aging". Natural Medicine Journal. (The official journal of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These were also all funded by the company. As primary research papers, they are also not very useful as sources per WP:MEDRS. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per Northamerica1000's reliable source finds. I'm not sure about the Natural Medicine Journal, but the other journals look reputable. --Mark viking (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading the WP article gives no clue as to what "BioCell Collagen" is, other than its composition: at the very least the article should mention that it is a (commercial) dietary supplement. (As in sentence 2 of the abstract of http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426261/ ) Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've asked members of WP:MED to take a look. SmartSE (talk) 12:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- the sources pasted above by Northamerica1000 are not reliable per SmartSE's comments. Need independent secondary and tertiary sources. Lesion (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entire based on primary sources. No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have struck my keep !vote above per the discourse that has occurred here. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have struck my keep recommendation, too, based on new evidence that these sources may be reliable, but are not independent. Thanks for digging into this, SmartSE. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. Thanks for taking another look. SmartSE (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per all of the above, sources providing significant coverage are primary in nature, and third-party sources are only providing passing mentions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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