Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 March	26 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 delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InCorp Services, Inc.[edit]

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

The articles does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY guidelines for notability. The company's basis for notability seems to lie in the claim that it is the second largest registered agent in Nevada and the largest Nevada-based registered agent service. Through research, I've found that Nevada is a popular state for incorporation, but that fact still doesn't seem like justification for the company's inclusion in an encyclopedia. The article also relies exclusively on primary research and does not meet the WP:SOURCE guidelines. In looking for resources, I did find a book result of the company being listed as one of the Big Four registered agent companies (not sure even this would make the company notable), but the author, Jennifer Reuting, is one of the company's co-founders and her claim isn't based on any kind of visible research or statistic. I could find no published, reliable, secondary sources and I do not think any exist. EBstrunk18 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 26. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject to later userfication. Right now, it would be very difficult to sort out reliable sources (and to add them) from the cruft of Google. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-sourced and press releases only. Spinning Spark 15:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immutable characteristic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Immutable_characteristic&action=edit

It has no sources. Just a couple of links to other WP article, none of which substantiate what is said here. Several of the protected groups are not immutable. Being a hate crime has little to do with anything being immutable. I say delete the article as worthless. Roger (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completed the nomination. ansh666 23:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - In its current state, it falls afoul of WP:NOTDICT as well as having no sources. A cursory Google search failed to find anything remotely reliable or useful, but hopefully someone with more knowledge on the matter will know where to look. ansh666 23:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And so they did. Keep per below, on the condition that it's expanded to include the "impact" mentioned below (I won't, because I hate legal stuff!). ansh666 16:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept seems notable. For example, see On Modern Legal Culture — "Immutability as a concept has played a part in American constitutional law". The page is currently just weak stub but that is not a reason to delete - see our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a both a legal and ethical concept, and theological (discussed at immutability (theology)). The concept is important and has had an impact on society (including the Constitution of the USA and EU). Many sources available in Google Books legal+term+immutability -- GreenC 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Whole books and many scholarly articles have been written about the concept. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant amount of coverage in scholarly and academic secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is just a silly attempt to use someone else's leverage, in this case, anti-Hitler sentiment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.24.44 (talk • contribs)
- ...what? ansh666 18:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC) (p.s. Godwin's law)[reply]
  - 76.64.24.44 has four edits. One here which makes no sense, two others where he removed something he called spam that was not, and one on another IP address's talk page where he accused them of being a sockpuppet. Dream Focus 15:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Discussed in tons of sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:27, 31 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) Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal national under-17 football team[edit]

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

Non-notable junior football team with non-notable players, fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not notable? The team is playing at a major international tournament this fall, which leads to the U17 World Cup. Ayoopdog (talk) 03:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Team will be playing in a continental international tournament. See Category:Under-17 association football, there seems to be clear consensus from the large number of articles that teams competing at that level in this age group are inherently notable. Needs expanding with sourced prose rather than deleting. Fenix down (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the under-17 team plays in a World Cup, I'd say that was a sufficient claim to notability. Giant Snowman 13:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this U-17 team represents for a country. The team plays at the major tournaments. Banhtrung1 14:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 27 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 Bhumihar, delete Bhumihar Brahmin, and redirect the deleted name to the existing name. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar[edit]

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

Seems like this is a duplication of the ~~better~~ similar article Bhumihar Brahmin. I suggest a delete/redirect, as there is little here to merge. Safiel (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumihar Brahmin is not a "better" article. It is a POV version of Bhumihar, based on this version of Bhumihar, which has been rejected by multiple editors. It was originally a redirect to Bhumihar, since "Bhumihar Brahmin" is a POV title - the "Brahmin" status of the Bhumihars is disputed. A single-purpose account Snr327 (most probably a sock of Mikku kumar) copy-pasted the rejected version from Bhumihar's history a couple of days back. utcursch | talk 02:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, in that case, than maybe "vice versa" on the articles. In either case, one of the articles needs to go, that is for sure and with that, I will make this an AfD on both articles. Safiel (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nomination Given the comment by Utcursch above, I will nominate Bhumihar Brahmin for deletion and let people decide which one stays and which one goes. Safiel (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, on reconsideration, striking the better from my nomination comment. Safiel (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Utcursch is correct. What needs to happen is that the Bhumihar Brahmin article becomes a fully-protected redirect to Bhumihar. The use of "Bhumihar" without the "Brahmin" is more common and more in line with how we treat caste article titles on Wikipedia generally. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we should probably also protect the non-existent Bhumihar Brahmins - they'll only move the POV stuff there if the BB redirect is fully-protected. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and delete Bhumihar Brahmin Bhumihar Brahmin is a POV title, redirect it to Bhumihar. On some research on Google books, Brahmin status of Bhumihars is disputed. Many books refer to them as shudras who have achieved upper caste status. [1], [2], [3]Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bhumihar and keep Bhumihar Brahmin: I don't agree that the title "Bhumihar Brahmin" is POV as most of the sources refer them as a Brahmin community. But still, if some members have objection with the title, then Bhumihar should be deleted first and then Bhumihar Brahmin can be moved to "Bhumihar" (by changing the title). By this we can retain the detailed content of the article Bhumihar Brahmin. Bhumihar Brahmin is quite informative and seem well-sourced. Instead of rejecting this entire article, we can remove the unsourced and poorly sourced content. -Owsert (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Owsert: the POV fork is not well-sourced at all. It was forked primarily because the main source was rejected umpteen times here, ie: Sahajanand Saraswati. It is well-known that using sources from pseudo-historians who are members of the very caste they write about is a recipe for disaster, and indeed it shows in his writings. Aside from stuff sourced to him, there really isn't all that much there that complies with policy. For example, there is a fair amount of synthesis going on and there is a heck of a lot of referencing to discredited Raj "ethnographers". They, too, have been rejected at the Bhumihar article and there is wide consensus for them to be rejected just about everywhere. This POV-fork is useless. - Sitush (talk) 18:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the argument "_By this we can retain the detailed content of the article Bhumihar Brahmin_" is flawed. The content is already retained in the history of the article Bhumihar, because "Bhumihar Brahmin" is entirely copied from a previous, rejected version of the article Bhumihar. utcursch | talk 13:20, 21 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, ‑Scottywong | confess _ 22:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Note since I can't remember how to relist. The AfD tag was removed three days ago. I've since restored, but FYI for closing. StarM 21:45, 30 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal national under-14 football team[edit]

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

PROD contested by Author. U-14 is not notable. – Michael (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason. – Michael (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Official AFC source provided. Article are also stubs for future encyclopaedic development. Moreover, Wikiproject Football has an essay on notability, where it does not dictate that all U14 sides are automatically not notable, as the editor above suggested. Ayoopdog (talk) 04:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Both fail WP:GNG, U-14 football is not notable, precedent at this previous 2014 AFC U-14 Championship AfD... JMHamo (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that U-14 football is un-notable is redunant. Please see: Football at the 2013 Asian Youth Games for example. And the reason why there are red links is because of editors like yourselves creating a culture that inhibits the encyclopaedic development of U14 articles. Ayoopdog (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Although only embryonic, I believe there is sufficient opinion to indicate that initial consensus shown here and here relating to U-14 level footbal is that they are not necessarily inherently notable and require sourced prose. Not sure that exists here, the only prose in the article is about the stadium and is only tangentially relevant. Fenix down (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After reading WP:OVERZEALOUS and WP:OBSCURE, I must highlight that obscurity is not grounds for deletion. The article needs expansion with more prose sources, not a nuke option. Ayoopdog (talk) 15:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refresh your understanding of WP:AGF with regards to your comments re Overzealous. Please also note that these are essays not guidelines, and so don't really count in AfDs. You're quite right though, if possible the article needes expanding with significant, reliable sources (i.e. not WP:ROUTINE match reports, squad listings and the like). However, these do not seem to exist. Fenix down (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per WP:GNG and previous consensus. Giant Snowman 13:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 27 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 21:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VisionHelpdesk[edit]

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

Article does not establish the notability of the product it describes. Of the two sources, one is affiliated. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. The one source in the article from Ping Zine! appears to be reliable (it's printed and distributed and appears to be editorially independent), but not finding other significant coverage in reliable sources. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 29 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 per WP:TOOSOON with no prejudice to re-creation if/when sources saying production has commenced. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Death (Short Film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film. Unknown film; unknown filmmaker. No reliable sources (no sources at all). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Facebook isn't a reliable source for an unspecified release date? Verging on G11. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per lacking any coverage or verifiability in reliable sources. This might change after the film is released, but for now the kindest thing we can say is that this is simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:44, 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. Nomination withdrawn and no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Davis[edit]

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

This person does not exist. The only source given in the article does not mention him. It also fails the Google test. bender235 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your conclusion that he doesn't exist? I could understand a challenge to notability, but Google searches produce multiple sources that appear to verify all or some of the facts asserted in this article, namely that Rennie Davis' father was named John C. Davis and was a labor economist who served with the Council of Economic Advisors in the Truman administration. E.g. [4][5][6][7][8][9] --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that surprises me. I asked the creator of the article, User:Cirt, whether he had any sources for the name "John C. Davis", because I suspected a misidentification with Joseph S. Davis, member of the CEA in 1955–58 [10]. I guess I was wrong, because this seems to prove a "John C. Davis" also served on the CEA. We might fold this AfD then. --bender235 (talk) 08:23, 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 05:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé: Mrs. Carter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NF Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm having some trouble actually finding sourcing for this. I would otherwise suggest merge/redirect to The_Mrs._Carter_Show_World_Tour#Broadcasts_and_recordings, but I'm having a little trouble finding where this is mentioned anywhere. The link on the page doesn't seem to mention this film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Well... E-Online speaks about how she wore Versace costuming for the tour. Huffington Post speaks about the tour, just as does MTV and Billboard shares footage of the tour... but the Beyoncé: Mrs. Carter 3D documentary itself lacks coverage. Seems to be TOO SOON under WP:NFF. Allow undeletion or recreation when this 3D documentary gets coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Don Gibson. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If You Ever Get to Houston (Look Me Down)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS.. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The album did not chart but it yielded three charting country singles, including the title track. I'm unable to find non-trivial coverage for the album itself, just the occasional blurb on one of its singles (e.g., here and here). If there is insufficient material for a standalone article, then at the least, this seems a reasonable candidate to be redirected to the artist's main page as a plausible search term. Gong show 19:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Don Gibson. ~~Mr*|(60nna)~~ 16:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 27 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD A10 (duplicates Diamonds World Tour). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diam0nds World Tour[edit]

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

delete as not news. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As no indication of notability, no context and no sources. Apart from that, almost FL material. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7), as with last month's seemingly similar Diamonds W0rld Tour created by the same editor. Event with no importance or significance asserted. Dates do not mesh with actual Diamonds World Tour. Gong show 19:12, 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 16:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RapidValue[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only coverage is in poor-quality sources that appears to be copied from press releases. SmartSE (talk) 00:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 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, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 18:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I performed multiple searches (Google SERPs, TechCrunch, Mashable, India newspapers in English, etc.)trying find reliable, third-party resources and found none. I did find this story in the Times of India, but it looks lifted from press release. The Red Herring (magazine) awards seem vaguely notable, but the awards are just simple listings. Seems pretty thin.EBstrunk18 (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is notable, but even if it is it needs speedy deleting G11 and starting over. Spinning Spark 00:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong venue. Redirects, even soft ones, should be discussed at WP:RfD, not WP:AfD. (non-admin closure) ansh666 06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pourquoi[edit]

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

No content, just a link to Wiktionary. (The most this can every contribute to human knowledge is an extra redirect!) Imaginatorium (talk) 03:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to delete this redirect than you might as well delete the nearly 1200 other redirects in Category:Redirects to Wiktionary -- Elassint ^Hi 14:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Moreover, some redirects are valid since they might get an article in English Wikipedia in the future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I tried looking at one: Avtokinitódromos. (try it) Lo and behold, Wiktionary suggests its sister. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen one of these at AfD before. They don't go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is what {{wiktionary redirect}} is for: "Do not place it on every possible word. It is only for dictionary definitions and which, due to previous re-creations, are likely to be re-created." This page has been created a couple of times before. —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confess I have not investigated this template and its supposed purpose very carefully. But I really cannot understand what the explanation quoted above (in its current, ungrammatical form) is supposed to mean. I suggested originally that all this can add to human knowledge is an extra indirection: this is the case if we go from not having a WP entry for "Pourquoi" to *having* an entry which says "Wikipedia does not have an [entry]..." but adds a link to Wiktionary. Never mind the logical conundrum of an entry which claims not to exist: the proper way to do this is *not* to have an entry, but for the WP "not found" message to say "Try Wiktionary" if indeed there is an entry there. This means a bit of work, in getting a regularly updated headword list from Wikt, but is surely easily done. Meanwhile, can anyone explain why "Pourquoi" should have an entry and not "Perché" for example? (Somehow amazing neither of these are names of songs!) (For the non-romanticists: "Pourquoi" is the French for "Why", and "Perché" is Italian.) Imaginatorium (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's intended for cases where, for whatever reason, an article for a simple word or term that does nothing more than define it has been created repeatedly, which is a nuisance since it means we have to go through the deletion process every time. Posting the page once and for all as a redirect to Wiktionary will prevent the next person who would be inclined to create a definition-only article if it didn't already exist from creating one. I don't know where you got the idea that there's something about perché that would prevent someone from according it the same treatment if the same conditions prevailed as for pourquoi. The distinction for which you're asking for an explanation doesn't exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I PRODded another such redirect created by the same user because that page had no previous creation history. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand _your_ explanation perfectly. But the original message is not clear, partly because it breaks the "Assume good faith" assumption -- I read the "likely to be re-created" as meaning there was likely to be a (genuine) article (which doesn't make any immediate sense for 'pourquoi'). I think that since the page generated by this template is 'fake', in the sense that it claims itself not to exist, it should include a specific explanation of why it is there -- to prevent people repeatedly generating inappropriate stub articles. I cannot believe, though, that this is a good way to handle this long-term. Is there no way a page can be made hard to create? Sort of empty-protected? Anyway, I apologise for generating a fuss. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:21, 20 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, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 17:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Largoplazo's reasoning. Wiktionary soft redirects are exactly for this purpose and are also useful for readers looking for basic information on the term. Alternatively, we could redirect to Pourquoi story, which also has the defn, but the Wiktionary entry seems like a better fit for this term. --Mark viking (talk) 23:44, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Spalding[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No substantial coverage in reliable sources and a search in factiva turned up nothing but brief mentions. SmartSE (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems to be PR judging by the contributions of the (indef blocked) creator. Guy (Help!) 18:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the reputation of the article's author comes into play in AfD decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs) 15:53, 22 March 2014‎

In general, I agree with you. We should be judging the article, not the author. But, spam-for-hire is a special case, IMHO. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are mostly web ephemera or trivial mention (as in Forbes article). Assertions of notability seem to be that he founded "StyleSeek" and that he was involved in "development of the External Fuel Tank for NASA’s Space Shuttle Program". Neither of these confer notability per se. (The latter cannot really even be true, since the overall Shuttle design was already finalized by the mid 1970s, before Spalding was born.) Agricola44 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in [11], [12], [13] and [14], [15]. StyleSeek is the primary focus of much of the coverage but there is significant coverage of the subject in these articles as well. ~KvnG 15:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crain's Chicago Business is a good source, but the others seem to be trivial mentions, including in obscure sources like college magazines and web portals. Notability in business generally involves in-depth coverage in mainstream sources. Agricola44 (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORP requires mainstream coverage, WP:BIO is not as demanding. Which applies here? ~KvnG 13:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As DGG just mentioned in the nominating statement at a different AfD, we have gone away from local sources because they tend to be indiscriminate. The thresholds for notability, regardless of the guideline being used, have increased significantly in the last few years. Independent of the problems this article has as a paid work, its sources do not demonstrate notability according to current conventions. Perhaps there are sources still yet to be found? Agricola44 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as spam and salt. Article creator is a professional publicity agent who has created lots of these kinds of articles and is already under indefinite block for spamming and sockpuppetry. I love this statement in the lede: Spalding assisted in the development of the External Fuel Tank. Barf. In other words, he was one of tens of thousands of people who worked for a contractor that was involved in the project. One comment regarding the quality of the references, however; I would consider TechCrunch to be a reasonably reliable source. Yes, they are just an industry blog, but as followers of tech startups, they're a heavy hitter. Not the same league as, say, coverage in the Wall Street Journal, but also not just some random blog. On the other side of the coin, a $750K seed round is not earth-shattering news. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - So we have at least two acknowledged WP:RELIABLE sources but we want to delete (with prejudice) because the article has NPOV issues and the creator of this article has wreaked havoc elsewhere? ~KvnG 13:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, although the Chicago Business source is better than anything I could find, I don't think that's enough to meet WP:BIO. It's up to us whether we take into account the article creator - I didn't note this in the nomination as I feel that subjects should be judged in their own right, but considering that WP:NOTPROMO is part of a policy, it's justifiable for editors to use this as a rationale for deletion when notability is borderline. SmartSE (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not just "wreaked havoc", but "intentionally abused the system for personal profit". Big difference. I want the reaction when we discover such abuses to be so painful that it acts as a deterrent and sets an example to other people. That includes deleting every article they have ever created. They are here to make money, so we need to hit them in the pocketbook. Let all their other customers discover that the wikipedia articles they've purchased have been deleted, and pound on the spammer's door looking for a refund. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 25 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, ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting rationale - Would like to allow for further discussion of the sources that were provided above, and whether or not they are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my reading, the sources are mostly regional. One that caught my attention was MIT Sloan Management Review, a respected journal, but article is a blog interview and about subject's venture much more than about subject. Am not sure about status of TechCrunch, but article is again more about venture.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: TechCrunch, yes, it's about the company. That's what TC writes about. Any mention of people related to the company is in passing, and for sure, if we're looking for evidence that this person is notable, notability of the company does not inherit to the person. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP frowns on regional sources. I don't believe they are a problem for WP:GNG or WP:BIO. ~KvnG 03:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have to be "published", but WP:BIO is otherwise somewhat vague. In practice, we typically do not weigh what you've called "regional sources" very heavily, for example neighborhood newspapers, institutional or corporate bulletins/newsletters, etc. We also don't count web ephemera for much either, for example ref 2 in the article, which apparently is a webzine for community and culture. I agree with Roy: paid editing is an increasing problem violating the fundamental tenet of WP. In this case, as with many, the agent has tried too hard and the article is shoddy. The sources are poor and some of the claims are demonstrably false (see my comment above regarding the Shuttle). I don't think there's any impediment to recreating the article, if proper sources can be found. Agricola44 (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

There seems to be a chorus concerning making a statement about paid promotion on WP. I haven't looked into it myself but apparently the author of this article has been disciplined. It seems like any statement we'd choose to make should be made in whole as part of the discipline process and not one off and ongoing in individual AfD discussions. Researching and bringing background information on contributors to articles as part of the AfD discussion does not seem like it is a door we should open. ~KvnG 20:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we shouldn't delete articles purely because they are written by paid editors gaming the system, but if as in this case notability is shaky, it's hardly surprising that the consensus swings towards deletion. To provide some background: I came across this from looking over the socks here and then found what appear to be many more. This isn't just one editor. SmartSE (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
~~Unsure~~ Delete Unlike the usual, there are sufficient acceptable sources. A full scale interview in TeleChrch has generally been associated with notability (the title of the piece does not indicate it's a full article, not just a routine notice, but reading the article makes it clear that it's substantial coverage) . The MIT and Forbes interviews similarly add to it. Crain's Chicago Business is nto in my opinion acceptable for notability , for the reasons already given, but the other three are. As I suppose everyone here knows, I am very skeptical about paid editing. It can however be defensable if the subject is notable and the article not overly promotional. There is some material in here I considered characteristic of promotion (the personal details about how he happened to think of starting the company is a worn-out cliché), but I have just removed it. Even if we end up deleting it, I think it's worth a look to see what a neutral article would be like. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the above comment before I checked the contributor coi discussion. It's another of the times I've foolishly spent effort trying to fix a fundamentally unsuitable article. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 28 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 21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian Ring[edit]

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

Neither the "Belgian Ring" nor its organization, the Nationaal Verbond van Belgische Kynologen, seem to be notable at all. I was thinking of creating the article for the NVBK and making this a redirect, but that organization has no coverage at all in reliable sources, and appears to be nothing more than an interest group for a specific kind of dog. "Belgian Ring" has various hits, but none that I can find in reliable sources that add up to anything at all. In short, delete per WP:GNG. Drmies (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added per Xanthomelanoussprog:

Delete. This, and related articles such as Mondio Ring and French Ring Sport seem to describe variations on a general form of ring trial. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of these meet WP:GNG, not notable and very minor groups. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 27 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. → Call me Hahc21 21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric terms of location[edit]

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and this article contains only a short list of related words. The title is also not notable -- even if one wanted to find this set of words, one would probably not recognise this title as referring to them. Imaginatorium (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least while this is carefully thought about – plain deletion wouldn't be in my thoughts. We have plenty of glossaries and I can picture this being in Category:Glossaries of mathematics or merged with an article there. However, I don't think it should be merged with Glossary of classical algebraic geometry. On a different tack I note there is Anatomical terms of location (yes, I know...). Each item in the present list is notable (or its corresponding noun is) so can be considered as a list of notable topics. On the other hand, even with the narrow scope of the article, the list is very incomplete so merging into some larger, more ambitious topic would be sensible. Unless the article develops substantially (and it is still very new) it will not seem very appropriate. Finally, wikt:Appendix:Glossary of geometry could be created or the terms might be added into wikt:Appendix:Mathematics#Geometry allowing deletion here. I'm not sufficiently familiar with things at Wiktionary to know if those are acceptable suggestions. Seven days at AfD is not a good way to consider things. Thincat (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment related to Thincat's observations: There are also articles on Relative direction and Cardinal direction. These are articles about the systems of positioning and locating, not glossaries of the terms used in those systems. I'm not sure whether such an article could be written about the system in which these geometric terms figure, but it seems possible that either a glossary or an article could be worthwhile. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this can be satisfactorily expanded. We should have an article where the various methods are all described in basic terms in a single place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:41, 29 March 2014

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda O'Keeffe[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO non-notable individual, almost like a résumé JMHamo (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - almost no reliable sources are in the article, and I can't seem to locate many references. Here is a primary source from the Dance Theatre of Ireland, which is already in the article. She has a very common name, so locating sources online has been difficult - a print designer with the same name may be as notable, as might a medical doctor. I found this and that, but not much more in the first few pages of Google searches. If she has had shows internationally, there may be more information in a news or performance art directory. Can this be saved? Bearian (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Created by SPA "wikilindi", self promo article, with no notablity shown. Murry1975 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability, and a vanity piece. Snappy (talk) 18:48, 30 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. Tawker (talk) 07:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History in 1 Minute[edit]

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

Prod removed by page creator with no explanation. Non-notable book. TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found to indicate that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK; just listings at Amazon and eBay. Gong show 16:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the book even exists as anything other than a Facebook page. Spinning Spark 16:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pav Akhtar[edit]

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

This article was tagged in May 2007 as lacking a credible claim of notability, and was listed for Deletion in September 2007. The result of that discussion was no consensus to delete. The article describes a non-notable person who has had involvement only as an elected political at a London borough level, this fails to meet any of the relevant notability criteria WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. In terms of sources a number of links are dead, and I would suggest that this article fails to establish the notability of the person in question. Wisd e n17 15:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Overly self-promotional with no real significance. He has a job, he's a local councillor and he's been on TV isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see that Akhtar has contributed to any one realm in a significant way. Certainly not politics. This reads like a cover letter. --PDX er1 (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A union official (other than the most senior) is NN; so is a lcoal councillor; The only basis on which he might be notable is as a gay activist, for which he has some awards, though probably NN ones only. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obscure NN politician. Szzuk (talk) 20:46, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Instant Game Collection games (North America)[edit]

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

WP:NOT in particular WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:10YT. WP:FANCRUFT Hell, its of zero value the very next month after the game is no longer "free". It is of zero encyclopedic value in 10 years to say that for one month, a game was "given" away to people who paid for a subscription. We might as well have List of issues of Cosmopolitan magazine Gaijin42 (talk) 15:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would have been a good idea for you to wait for the similar AfD you started to finish first; the outcome is likely to be the same for both articles. Still, my rationale is basically the same as there, there are many sources documenting these games being part of the collection. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources documenting my local high school team games too, but we don't make a list of them. WP:ROUTINE coverage is not encyclopedic. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For reasons listed at the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games discussion, and in addition: the initial availability time varies between games, with some available for one year+ and once games are added to a PSN user's download list they are in fact available for free forever (as long as they are a Plus member). Therefore they are notable, some more than others of course but that's not the point. Examples are Gravity Rush, Uncharted: Golden Abyss and Wipeout 2048 which have all been initially available for 1 year 4 months to date. —Dell9300 (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (edit conflict) This is a direct analog to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games, and thus my argument is identical except for the subject swap. The coverage is significant, widespread, and from multiple sources. Moreover, the coverage is national, unlike that of most high school sports teams. And if any of the examples in WP:ROUTINE were in multiple reliable sources, there would be little question of their notability, and the case is similar here. The Cosmo example is off-putting, as to insinuate that the magazine is less worthy of a list than, say, a bunch of other stuff: List of Doctor Who – Battles in Time issues, List of TV Guide covers, List of Playboy (Brazil) covers, List of Granta issues, List of Baseline magazine issues, List of Emigre magazine issues, List of Atari Age issues, List of Mad issues, etc. This is to say that there can be encyclopedic need for lists of issues and that I don't believe it falls under WP:ROUTINE. Re: the WP links in the OP—it doesn't help to just link to a policy. I think this list would pass the ten-year test as a list of titles Sony contributed to a lasting public game collection. And, by WP:IINFO itself, this list would be fine since it has third-party coverage. Lastly, the fancruft essay is more about how the term is pejorative used by editors who don't like a niche pop culture subject, and it recommends to cite actual WP policy instead. czar ♔ 18:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This list is helpful to contextualize the difference in the offerings of Sony and Microsoft's respective subscription services, and will be useful to readers for many years to come. You imply that this is unimportant the second the game leaves the program, but that'd be akin to implying that it would be useless to list episodes of television shows after they're no longer aired on television. It's still relevant, albeit not accessible in the same form at present. A decade from now, I don't doubt that this topic will be researched by peoples interested in why the PlayStation 4 or Xbox One was more successful than the other, as the comparison between their respective offerings is vital in understanding the general consumer's mindset as to the quality of their respective services. To imply that this isn't relevant to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia is to ignore the potentially huge impact of these programs on the future of the games industry. --Nicereddy (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Games with Gold games. ansh666 05:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am the user who originally decided to add in the column of when games are deleted. I am not the one who decided to separate the Instant Game Collection into a NA and PAL list though. I loved this list, because it showed me which games were previously given away for free and thus would not be given away for free in the future. This list also proved valuable, because it gave me insight into the quality of the games that were being released for free and whether or not it was worthwhile to subscribe to the service. About the removed date column, my original goal was to give people an idea of how much time a game may last for free as part of the service and if a game was removed. By doing this, I hoped that people would be able to see whether or not a game was still offered when they subscribed to the service. PS Fan Boy (talk) 05:37, 29 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. Spinning Spark 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration[edit]

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

almost 8 years since the last AfD, no improvement in sourcing. Nothing major is reveled through an online search. --Mdann52talk to me! 15:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources are available. I've added some. This school is an important and high-profile part of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Although its own claims to be the "second-best" hotel school (after Cornell)[16] don't necessarily hold up, the school consistently shows up in the top echelon of hospitality management school surveys. [17][18][19] This content could possibly be merged into a new subsection about the school at University of Nevada, Las Vegas#Academics, but I'm not sure there's enough room there, and many of the other top hospitality schools have their own articles, see Category:Hospitality schools in the United States. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Arxiloxos's additions appear to demonstrate notability, also WP:HEY. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ITVmediaPlayer[edit]

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

Non-notable product, written as an advertisement by a user (SPA) whose years-long edit history consists in proposing/making this article and adding references to it in other articles. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a makeuseof.com review. Makeuseof.com is used elsewhere in Wikipedia, and I'm not finding any RSN discussions about it. It's at best a poor indicator of notability. --Ronz (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that this is unrelated to ITVplayer, the internet television service of major UK TV broadcaster ITV. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 22:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure spam. Even worse if the SPA working on it has WP:COI. Nothing notable or noteworthy. Wikipedia is not a directory of products ES &L 11:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references that prove notability. The references themselves are also questionable. Greedo 8 16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI and referencing issues, along with the probable illegality of the program (and even if it is legal, it's probably on the level of Rabbit TV in being a front-end for outside services). Aereo this isn't. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this doesn't look all that notable, even before taking into account the practically-minimal sourcing (mostly to the websites for this product and a sister product, with the other sources being an Intel developer partner listing and a Wikipedia article) and the likely conflict-of-interest issues. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 27 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 assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArchitectSAP Solutions[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP Anupmehra -Let's talk! 14:16, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Dash[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Shritwod (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This rapper has appeared on 12 U.S. charts, including the main Hot 100. Coverage of him and/or his work is at Billboard [20] (which notes that his single was certified gold), Spin [21], USA Today [22], HipHopDX [23], and elsewhere [24][25][26] which demonstrates that he meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 16:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly notable, his song Wop is frequently used on vines. ScienceApe (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 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. per additional sources added to article Tawker (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CamperMate[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Shritwod (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage is not substantial enough yet. I think it is too soon. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only one pretty poor source discussing it. I can't find anything better so a long way from meeting GNG. SmartSE (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG per the following sources:

App helps travellers spend a penny. Stuff.co.nz.
Campermate’s quest to clean up the countryside. Idea Log. (a bylined article in a print magazine)
Mobile homes meet mobile phones as Campermate tries to clean up the countryside. Stop Press. (part of the Tangible Media network)
Smartphone app cleans up freedom campers. Newstalk ZB.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources found by Northamerica1000. And, a slow clap from me for the efforts. GRUcrule (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources above reach GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One app created by small (single person?) company, Appears to have gotten some publicity on launch but not much since. Not exactly Angry Birds or Siri - SimonLyall (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spinning Spark 16:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2009 CONCACAF Beach Soccer Championship squads[edit]

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

Incomplete list of players, with no prose and no citations. Fails WP:NOTSTATS and bordering on WP:LISTCRUFT. Similar to a previous AfD - 2013 Cyprus Cup squads JMHamo (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article, while incomplete, does no harm to anybody or anything. The material presented is factual and uncontroversial. Is it notable? To a small group of devotees of a small sport, it is. To delete it and similar articles is to delete a bit of human history that should be preserved. Deleting it serves no useful purpose whatsoever. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Common sense Smallchief (talk 14:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NOHARM - ...articles that do not conform to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes – it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here. JMHamo (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - incomplete list of non-notable players, serves no purpose. Giant Snowman 18:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contravention of WP:NOTSTATS due to complete lack of sourced prose. No indication that the subject of the squads in this interation of the tournament attractsed anywhere near the level of significant reliable coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of notable subjects in the listing as per WP:NFOOTY means this is hardly a useful navigation tool either. @Smallchief: you may wish to compare their comments to WP:PPOV. Fenix down (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not being a wiki wonk, I don't know the buzz words to use when discussing "policy." My interest is contributing content to improve wikipedia.

I don't have any interest in beach soccer or this article specifically. My concern is broader. Certain people are attempting to delate all articles which list the participants in international sports tournaments. This came to my attention in the deletion discussion concerning 2013 Cyprus Cup squads, which seemed to be an accurate and well-done article about an important international tournament for national women's soccer teams.

With three favoring deletion and two against, a decision was made to delete 2013 Cyrus Cup squads "by consensus." The precedent established, other similar wikipedia articles about other sporting events are now being proposed for deletion.

I haven't edited any of the articles proposed for deletion, but I find wikipedia articles listing the squads of teams to important international sports tournaments, such as the Cyprus Cup, to be both notable and useful. To delete them is to lose a useful source of information. It seems senseless to me.

But what do I know? I just contribute what I hope is good-quality content to wikipedia -- and appreciate the work of others whose aim is to add to the sum of the world's knowledge rather than subtract from it. Smallchief (talk 11:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be a Wiki Wonk to know that an "I like it" / "it's interesting" argument is not going to be in line with any form of guideline, as if they were acceptable arguments it we would have articles on all sorts of random nonsense and notability guidelines would be wholly unworkable even at a high level. It's also important to understand that AfD is a discussion, not a vote. You should note that in the Cyprus Cup AfD, aside from an unsupported claim that the article met GNG, the keep votes did not cite any guidelines and so inherently carry less weight. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 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 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Song Sutton[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Looks like a vanity article. Shritwod (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial covreage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her listings on the usual model websites indicate that she's worked widely and prolifically. She even has a law degree.[27] However, I found none of the substantial independent coverage that we require to pass WP:GNG: the best I could find was a 2013 article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal about an alcoholic cupcake business she started with a partner.[28] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found an interview in a low-quality source here but I don't think that and the other sources are sufficient to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 27 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. Closing this per WP:SNOW as per the discussion that the subject meets point #3 of WP:NACADEMICS, and of the specific criteria notes for WP:NACADEMICS meets point #3 and point #1. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Pol Vigneron[edit]

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

I don't see that this is a notable individual. Being a member of an academy, no matter how notable does not infer notability in itself. Shritwod (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep An elected member of a national academy of sciences clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC#3. --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. As well as the clear pass of WP:PROF#C3 given as the deletion rationale (!) he also passes #C1 by virtue of highly cited publications: Google scholar lists 17 papers with over 100 citations each and (assuming all the listed pubs are his and not some other J.P.Vigneron) an h-index of 51, well above our usual standards for keeping an article based on that criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly as above. Would the nominator like to explain the steps he took to carry out WP:Before? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The article follows a pattern of article creation which may be paid editing by editor Flaviohmg. The article lacks detail which makes it look suspicious, including the rather notable fact that the subject died in a car accident. Perhaps then it simply needs expansion. Shritwod (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what on earth has dying in a car accident got to do with it? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy keep -- per David Epstein, Xxanthippe and others, plus a memorial conference. All notable. Suggest that the nominator withdraw. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 00:01, 27 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. Spinning Spark 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CashBet[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Shritwod (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actually, possible Speedy Delete A7 for no bona fide claim to importance or significance. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence notabilty. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RingDNA[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Reads like an advertisement. Shritwod (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't read like an ad to me, but still not notable. Titus Fox^'Tribs 20:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 17:16, 30 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. Rationale: AfD discussions are not a vote, and the strongest arguments here related to GNG, and then secondly to precedent with regard to any putative inherent notability. Legal entity status, on the other hand, does not relate to any policy-based argument. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Federation of Republican Women[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Shritwod (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to National Federation of Republican Women, which is its national organization. Firstly, the current article is really just a list of current female Republican office holders, and if kept, needs to be renamed List of female Republican politicians in New Jersey, or redirected to a category page, or merged into New Jersey Republican Committee. Secondly, while the individuals listed may be notable, (a) notability is not inherited, and (b) there really isn't much of a connection between past moderate office-holders of the 1950s, '60s and 70s, when the GOP in New Jersey was a completely different party of today's Christie machine. Thirdly, all of the references are primary sources, and we need at least two or three secondary sources for general notability, especially for a group. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don;t normally even merge this material for state brnches of national organizations. the main organizations websitewill have the links if anyone wants information. DGG ( talk ) 02:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Is These are all different organizations. The article is more than a list, and contains neutral content. Your reference to the 'Christie machine' might indicate that your desire to delete the page is motivated by more than pure intentions' • MadieSmith Madiesmith (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete This organization is its own legal entity under state and federal election laws. It is not related to or part of the NJ Republican Committee. The NJ Republican Committee is formed under state statute as a Political Party Committee and its members stand for election on the ballot every two years. The NJFRW is a Continuing Political Committee, an entirely different entity under NJ law. The National Federation of Republican Women has state affiliates, ALL of which are their own legal entities. It appears that the person who wants this deleted has a political agenda and is completely uninformed about the legalities of PPCs and CPCs in the State of NJ. --ChazNJ (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of local and regional political parties and movements worldwide which are entities in their own right. They do not all deserve a listing, and in my view neither does this. But the reason that I nominated this article is that it appears that someone paid an editor to create it for some reason, which brings into question its notability and also flags up an undeclared COI with the page creator. Shritwod (talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep As Is~~ Shritwod: If the information provided is accurate, what difference does it make? Wiki is for everyone, not just those with technical knowledge. Maybe they did not how to use the program, or found the task daunting, but provided the content. There is an entire industry based on building websites, apps, and social media for those who do not have the technical knowledge to do so themselves, but it still requires the person contracting the programmer to provide content. No crime in that. Here, the content has been referenced and the content is paramount. And maybe they did make it themselves? We don't know for sure. Leave it be.–Madiesmith (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not aim to catalog every possible item of human knowledge, there has to be some level of notability. And an internal regional subdivision of a subdivision of a US political party does not seem to meet those criteria. I can't see that this is of any interest except to people directly involved in it. Shritwod (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearian, especially considering the sources aren't there so WP:GNG comes into play. Also, Madiesmith, you're only allowed one vote, so to avoid confusion I put a strikethrough your second use of bold for "Keep as is." GRUcrule (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but no objection to userfication. First on the plus side for this article, user MelanieN is mistaken to argue that articles copied verbatim in other newspapers cannot count towards notability. For the purposes of verifiability duplicate articles are effectively from the same source. This would be significant if the factual accuracy of the article was being challenged but I don't think anyone here is disputing the basic facts of Glenn's use of bitcoins. We are concerned instead at this AfD with the notability of the subject. Notability is measured on Wikipedia by whether reliable sources have discussed the subject. The fact that these papers have published a piece on Glenn means that they consider the story notable—they have noted it. It is irrelevant that they have copied it from somewhere else, as long as the paper is independent of the original source. So far, it sounds like I should be closing keep but the WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS arguments still stand with regard to the bitcoins story and everything else is only local notability at best which is not enough for an article per WP:POLITICIAN. If it could be shown that there was at least one other issue for which Glenn has had national coverage then I would consider undeleting. I am also happy to userfy the article for Dogtimecat on request if they wish to work on improving it before returning it to mainspace. One more piece of advice to Dogtimecat, you seem to have got the impression that you wrote too much in the article. That is not a problem (except where you stray from just giving the encyclopaedic facts into presenting a point of view) as far as this AFD debate is concerned. We are only concerned here with whether the article should exist at all, and as I say, that is judged against our notability criteria. Spinning Spark 20:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael B. Glenn[edit]

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

Not notable. Reads like a puff-piece. Being a candidate in an election is not notable in itself. Shritwod (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I completely agree with the characterization of this as a "puff piece". I do not see that Glenn has made any contribution to politics in any real way. This seems like a promotional piece for his city council bid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDX er1 (talk • contribs) 19:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created most of this content as a local to the area who follows politics. This person is notable and was originally added due to his acceptance of Bitcoin in politics regardless of FEC/FPPC approval. I am new to Wikipedia editing, so if I have expanded this beyond levels of appropriateness, please feel free to remove what is not needed. This is a big name in our area, though, and more importantly: nationally relevant (and covered in news) in the realm of digital currency, by LATimes, Chicago Tribune, OC Register, Daily Pilot, and Orlando Sentinel, among many others. I vote for it not to be deleted, but am open to modification, if needed. Preceding comment added by Dogtimecat (talk • contribs) 20:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Dogtimecat, can I enquire if you have a conflict of interest (COI) here? I can see four sets of edits Dogtimecat, Catwagdog, 198.72.183.219, 107.184.30.220 all of which seem to be more-or-less single-use accounts that are just used for editing this article and some related ones. The page creator Flaviohmg has already been flagged as having a potential COI inasmuch as they may have been paid to create the article. Of course, you can edit articles where you have a potential COI but care needs to be taken to avoid an impression of impropriety. Shritwod (talk) 21:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. Both of those IPs are mine, and they correspond with the accounts. One is mobile (catwagdog) and one is PC (Dogtimecat). I do not know the creator of this article nor can I attest as to why he created the article, but I do believe that the national (and international) coverage alone makes the subject newsworthy on at least one front. I am supportive of this person as a candidate but have no direct relationship to him. He has enthused a great number of people in the community (including myself) and when I saw the Wikipedia page, I wanted to contribute. It sounds like I may have over-contributed(?), and if that is the case, I am okay with removing the sections that are inappropriate, but believe that the article should reflect the nationally and internationally syndicated noteworthiness even if I have added things that may not be of interest to people as a whole (as they admittedly relate more to his local issues or him personally). It was my intent to contribute to the knowledgebase about this person and I had not considered the possibility of over-contributing as being problematic until now. Dogtimecat (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question. So, I'm a little confused by this statement because the image of Michael B Glenn says that it is your own work. But I notice that the exact same image appears in a much smaller form on the glenn2014.com and also on Mr Glenn's Facebook page and Twitter account. If that photo is your own work, then how did it end up on Mr Glenn's sites if you don't have a relationship with him? Shritwod (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I just uploaded the image, I struggled with the process and I am new here and not quite sure the process of image uploading, and it sounds like I improperly categorized it and/or attributed it. I did not take the photo, and it is not my own work. I requested the photo image from Glenn via Facebook and asked if I could use it here. He supplied me with a higher resolution photo and I am not sure which one I used. To answer the inevitable: That is the only time I have "interacted" with him (four messages), and I would not consider this a relationship or a conflict of interest. No, I was not paid for this. Yes, my message to him was unsolicited. To be fair, though: I am not sure how the Wikipedia TOS explicitly views it. Do I have a COI? If there is a photo problem, I can either paste his approval message in there or remove it-- whichever is more appropriate. My apologies for the hub-bub around this.Dogtimecat (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be confusing, there are a lot of them! I wasn't suggesting that you were paid to edit the article either, just that the original article may have been created in that way. The WP:COI policy is the best place to start if you want to avoid conflicts of interest while editing. Also, we need to fix the copyright information on the photograph because the copyright remains with Mr Glenn himself and has to be licensed by him (and not a third party). I'm not an expert in fixing that kind of issue though. Shritwod (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will correct: Thanks Shritwod, I will figure out how to correct this within the next 48 hours, if that is acceptable! Dogtimecat (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected: I figured out how to correct the image attribution-- done! Dogtimecat (talk) 5:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Followup. I noticed this was caught up in a purge from the original creators works, which I guess would explain all the attention.Dogtimecat (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Candidate for local city council. His only claim to notability is his acceptance of bitcoins as campaign donations. However, after I trimmed the duplicate references, the "national headlines" amount to a single story from the LA Times and its subsidiary the Daily Pilot, which was reprinted verbatim in the Chicago Tribune and the Orlando Sentinel. This is a single source, not the multiple sources required for notability. This is basically One Event-type "notability" for an obscure candidate for local office. The article is also hopelessly POV; I trimmed some of the obvious stuff like "freedom activist," but I couldn't do much about the argument that he is running to prevent Socialism from taking root in Newport Beach, or the poorly-cited hysteria about the California Coastal Commission seizing control of local beaches. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HandWallet[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Possible vanity piece? Shritwod (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't meet the WP:GNG as far as I can tell. SmartSE (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking significant reliable source coverage. Refs provided are a forum, a download site, and a brief review on appszoom.com which does not appear reliable. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G4 and WP:CSD#A7 both apply SmartSE (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SpringPublisher[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company. Shritwod (talk) 13:28, 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 REDIRECT to The Upper Footage. Spinning Spark 12:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Cole (director)[edit]

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

Does not appear to have a significant body of work, just an involvement in one non-mainstream film. Shritwod (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Upper Footage. I noticed this article's creation but chose to wait and see if anything else of note was added. The thing is, he's only known for one film. We already have an article for that, so an article for this director is a little premature. If/when he makes another film, we can always un-redirect it at that point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be more of a "puff" article than something attempting to document real notability. It's not obvious to me that you become notable for just working on one minor film. RomanSpa (talk) 11:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Upper Footage. He doesn't seem to be known for anything beyond that film, and doesn't seem to pass WP:CREATIVE on his own. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bishop Hall Jubilee School. Redirect, without prejudice to a mention of the Alumni association at the school article. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Hall Jubilee School Canada Alumni[edit]

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

Fail WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge material to a new section in Bishop Hall Jubilee School. The existence and activity of the Canada-based alumni group would actually support the notability of the school article. --do ncr am 00:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG, as does the school given the current state of its article, which I've tagged for notability. ► Philg88 ◄ ^♦talk 03:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:ORG. Perhaps a brief mention in the article on the Bishop Hill Jubilee School? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Star[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No longer passes PORNBIO and completely lacks the reliable sourcing required for a BLP. The only award win is a minor scene related effort which does not overcome the failure to pass GNG. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is joke? A few months ago there was a vote and discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celeste Star (2nd nomination), with 100% votes for keep. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 13:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

10 months is more then a few and PORNBIO has changed since then. Do you have an RSs or policy based arguments to put forward?Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Star meets the requirements of PORNBIO. Well-known porn star, on the covers of famous magazines, won and 18 nominated. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 14:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations don't count anymore. Scene awards don't count anymore and the award needs to be a well known and significant industry award anyway. The Galaxy Awards are not notable enough to have their own wikipedia article - which probably says it all. Being on the cover of a famous magazine hasn't been a notability standard in my time. Its years since appearing as a penthouse pet has counted. Perhaps you should review PORNBIO because your recollection of what it says doesn't match the current version that has wide community consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Its years since appearing as a penthouse pet has counted." I'm sorry, where is the discussion that concludes being a Penthouse Pet doesn't count anymore? (Whether it counts on its own seems to be debatable, but in conjunction with other things isn't). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you have a policy to support that argument do you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Policy, no, but when this was brought up in the previous discussion, no one objected...and that aspect of PORNBIO hasn't changed since. Do you have anything to support your argument besides your own opinion? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spartaz, even if (as amended) does not meet the point 1, meets the requirements of PORNBIO point 3. Hustler and Penthouse is enough. Also (to Hustler and Penthouse), there is won and 18 nominations (meet the previous requirements). Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 18:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? That's ridiculous. Hustler and Penthouse are not mainstream media. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I regret to report that Celeste there was no in CNN ;) You have far too high expectations for porn stars. Take it easy :) Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2) 18:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. Let's take an honest look at the deletion history here. The article was unanimously deleted in 2012 [29], despite her having been a Penthouse Pet, a Hustler cover model, etc. Because, even back then, there was an established consensus that such claims didn't contribute significantly to notability. The article was recreated and kept a year later, only because the subject had received two nonscene nominations in the same year, since PORNBIO had been revised to eliminate the "multiple year" requirement for nonscene nominations. Later in 2013, the community discussed PORNBIO at great length and removed nominations (scene or nonscene) from PORNBIO entirely, by an "overwhelming consensus". If you accept that overturning the 2012 deletion was OK because the community changed PORNBIO, you should accept overturning the 2013 keep because the community changed PORNBIO again. It's a matter of respect for community consensus, rather than going on at tendentious length about liking an outdated standard better. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment I see no WP:BEFORE here. I don't see anything about the 15 foreign-language wikis, the "What links here" that will be turned into red links, or evidence of searches including Google books and Google scholar. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment The topic has received attention as a result of appearing on the cover of Hustler, and has received long-term recognition from having been a Penthouse Pet in 2005, plus a prodigious career with hundreds of movie credits. The basic concept of wp:notability is the attention that a topic attracts from the world at large, and one thing we know about porn stars is that they attract the attention of the world at large. So as usual with pornstar articles we have massive wp:notability. IMO, the real problem for Wikipedia with pornstar articles is WP:V. Unscintillating (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, you wrong. In 2012 in article nothing written about Penthouse Pet and Hustler, in 2012 article was incomplete. And also, Penthouse, Hustler and Playboy, CKM are most popular erotic magazines in the world. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 16:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Celeste is very well-known, instantly recognizable, and is extremely popular in the industry and amoung fans. That's really the most important thing. Winning an award is nice, of course, but does not necessarily make them popular or well-known - which is a better standard than an award. Glenn Francis (talk) 11:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO's "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" criteria because she was in the main cast of the adult film Revenge of the Petites. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Being "in the main cast of" (whatever that means) is clearly not the same as "starring" in a film; the character Celeste Star plays isn't even mentioned in the official summary of the film, a clear signal of the lesser importance of her role. And there are no independent, reliable sources characterizing this video as iconic, groundbreaking, or blockbuster, as required. Note that in AFDs involving similar claims of notability, eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Rhomberg, substantial independent sourcing clearly addressing that point was provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hullaballoo Wolfowitz clearly demonstrates that she fails WP:PORNBIO's "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" criteria. Finnegas (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally fails the guidelines for notability for performers in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fully agree with Rebecca1990.--Hillary Scott`love (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 ICC World Twenty20 statistics[edit]

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

Un-needed content-fork with little or no context. Note that other stat pages for previous tournaments don't exist. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lugnuts, 2007-2012 ICC World twenty 20 statistics and records pages do exists with elaborated statistics, so only thing is 2014 stats page is empty, based on your message i've updated that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at the risk of falling foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF, all the other tournaments do have stats pages, and while this one is under developed because the tournament is still under way, it is a notable and justified list in my opinion. Harrias ^talk 06:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias. I didn't spot the other articles. I must have been in a Stuart Broad-esque rage about the thunder at the time. And the article was in this shape when I nominated it. Happy to withdraw this now. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:45, 27 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 00:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Walker Wear[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:BIO. His brother James H. Wear was a great-great-...grandfather of President Bush; that tenuous link doesn't even apply here, so no idea why he is included in the category "Bush family". No indication of notability for himself. [30] Fram (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Whatever one thinks of his brother, there is no indication here of any notability. Mangoe (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Way, way, way too far up the Bush family tree. He was born someplace, got married and had one child. Whoopee. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see any evidence for notability. Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:39, 31 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 21:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James H. Wear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

6 Years ago, this article was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Wear and kept. It is not clear to me what the supposed notability was or is though. He has notable family members (but notability is not inherited), and created some companies without clear claim to notability as well (neither has an article; Wear-Boogher gives 74 distinct Google hits, most from geneaology sites and the like[31]; the other gives only 16 hits[32]).

In my opinion, he clearly fails WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The assertions in the first discussion for the notability of the businesses are reminiscent of the "oldest permanent floating crap game" in a certain musical, or Riggs Bank's sometime claim to be the "most important bank in the most important city in the world". Really, if this fellow weren't in the Bush, um, bush, nobody would care. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason why notability may be presumed in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. Googling turned up nothing useful. Previous AfD discussion does not appear to considered any guidelines-based arguments. Msnicki (talk) 01:13, 27 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. Tawker (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common Core (organization)[edit]

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

While I believe this organization meets WP:GNG, as it currently stands (for over a year) it appears to be advertising. It was tagged in Semptember 2013 as such and has not been fixed yet. I do not feel I am sufficiently unbiased to edit the article's content in a neutral manner. Also, article appears to have been created by a WP:SPA whose name leads me to believe they are also biased about the subject. I'm proposing deletion in the hopes that it will bring in unbiased editors who can fix the article, if not I feel it should be deleted. C1776M ^Talk 10:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found reliable secondary sources that support notability of the subject, The Common Care initiative is notable, but I don't see Common Core inc, is. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to a redirect from "Common Core, Inc." or the like to the Common Core standards. I don't think this title, however, is a likely search term. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:07, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 always loved Julian Cope...but....his music more than his writing. :-) Thanks everyone for their comments and thoughts, and please assume good faith with each other and with this closure. SarahStierch (talk) 00:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Backstones[edit]

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

Article created by a sock puppet, sources all fail WP:RS as self-published, even they aren't certain about this. Can't find any reliable sources. If nothing else this is clearly not notable enough for its own article. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete The only definite hits are aficionado sites whose testimony is contradictory and plainly based on a lot of supposition. The only book reference mentioned positively does not call any site by this name. The coordinates in the article match none of those given by external sites, nor do any of them agree with each other. One of the on-line sources suggests that the site may be a fake. I'm not inclined to endorse even the possible existence of this site by giving it an article, not without something scholarly. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page was created by a sock-puppet of a blocked user who created a whole bunch of UK archaeology stubs in April 2013. Many of his contributions were subsequently deleted. I tried my best to clean-up (or move/merge/redirect) the remainder of his stubs (some of which were notable sites) but this one stumped me. The source originally used was a book by the neo-pagan "antiquarian" Julian Cope. I could find no proper archaeological sources, so I agree it should be deleted. Pasicles (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As stated on the talk page, the fan sites refer to a 19th-century report on an almost obscured stone circle near Backstone Beck. I can't find this online, including in JSTOR, but it is cited in at least two books on the archaeology of the area; can anyone check it? Collyer, R. and Turner, J.H., "Letter upon some early remains discovered in Yorkshire", Archaeologia 31 (1885). Yngvadottir (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Okay I've taken a look. There is in fact an 1846 "Letter upon upon some early remains discovered in Yorkshire" by J. M. N. Colls, and an 1885 book "Ilkley: ancient and modern" by R. Collyer and J. H. Turner.

The 1846 letter vaguely talks about "numerous vestiges of earth-works" which "intersect Baildon Common" and at one point mentions "circles of stones" but says nothing else about them.

The relevant page in the 1885 book seems to be page 18, where the authors discuss prehistoric Ilkley, which the authors seem to think might have been called "Llecan" in pre-Roman days. They state that "there was still a rude circle of rocks on the reach behind the old White Wells fifty years ago, tumbled into such confusion that you had to look once, and again before you saw what lay under your eyes; the stones were very large, and there was no trace of lime about them, and this may have been a rude outpost of the tribe for the defence of the great living spring, perhaps, also of Llecan, lying far below. Be that as it may, here was the very choicest spot on the river for such a stronghold as the Brigantes would build."

The "White Wells" is an old spa about 1km to the northwest. But it is not clear that the writers are referring to these "Backstones" (there are several other stone circles and cairns on Ilkley Moor.) Without any archaeological investigation, even just a field survey, it seems hard to justify this page being on Wikipedia. Pasicles (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to know, you can get a copy of the letter direct from Cambridge for $30. Personally I do not think that a letter/article in an 1846 journal and a vague statement in an 1885 book are enough to go on; as Pasicles says, there are consistent problems throughout as to whether anyone beyond the fan sites is talking about the same thing. Mangoe (talk) 19:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep (at most) -- The photo on the linked ref clearly shows an archaeological site of some kind. The question is what, which is debateable. My larger question is whether WP should have an article on every site that may be in the Local Historical Environment Record, particularly when it is unclear what it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photograph on the one site plainly shows a couple of dry-laid walls among the individual stones, and comparison with aerial views suggests a more accurate location but also shows that the two walls encompass most if not all of the site. I cannot see even hinting that this might be a megalithic site without some qualified authority to endorse that view. As it is, the same site recounts some local knowledge claiming that it is nothing of the kind. Mangoe (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question is really whether we should have an article on a site whose nature is so unclear. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this site is not listed in any official archaeological record. The two primary databases, Pastscape and The National Heritage List, have nothing on this "stone circle", but they have entries for the other stone circles, cairns, rubble walls, and standing stones in the area. There is a history of sites being messed around with on Ilkley Moor (read the pages on the Twelve Apostles and the Grubstones). I doubt we can justify having a page on a stone circle which might just be a few large boulders someone has moved around. Pasicles (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Gotta love sock puppets. Oh hang on, I meant shoot them. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 31 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 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sawansukha Jewellers[edit]

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

Non-notable company. CSD removed by ANOM. Lacks non-trivial support. Fails WP:COMPANY. reddogsix (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The Hindustan Times has had a couple of passing mentions of exhibitions by the firm, but I see nothing that amounts to coverage specifically about the firm that can demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially it is spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article creator deleted the AfD notice from the article, after which another editor renominated it. Any views at the second AfD should be taken into account in a decision here. AllyD (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That nomination has now been procedurally closed as a duplicate though the closing admin here may want to consider the nomination statement there as a !vote here when closing this AFD. Stalwart111 22:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete serious Deleter crieria of spam and missing notability Shrikanthv (talk) 04:56, 31 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 User:Jimfbleak per CSD G12, "Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OcKmUu7z5eo". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Girl (Audioplay)[edit]

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

Non-notable play lacking non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 03:29, 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 merge to Sonic X. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic X (comics)[edit]

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

There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability for this comic series. This comic series is actually a spin-off of another, notable comic series. The article is completely unsourced, and no sources are available elsewhere. This title is not suitable as a redirect because "(comics)" with parentheses is not a likely search term. Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously needs cites added, but appears WP:GNG. Merging it to another article would cause a WP:TOOLONG issue. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:40, 8 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, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge ~~Keep~~ - I'm not real familiar with any guidelines specific to comics, but with most other mediums, a long-term, nationally and officially published product with a notable IP, is going to have enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG. True, it's in terrible shape, but AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Sergecross73 msg me 15:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The mere fact that a comic is published by a notable publisher for a few years does not necessarily grant it significant coverage. It is parallel to books. Just because a book is nationally published does not necessarily mean in itself that the book is notable. It needs significant coverage in critic reviews and other reliable sources. Sonic X is an example of a comic series that doesn't have that coverage, even if it is nationally published. Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a merge or redirection since either the main comic series or Sonic X appear to be likely targets.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "(comics)" in parentheses doesn't seem like a likely search term for a redirect. I guess I'd be OK with selectively merging content to the article about the main series. (It wouldn't make the article too long if we select only the most relevant parts of the article to merge.) --Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 9 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This seems like a good candidate to merge. There's not so much material here that it can't be merged. The article is start-class at best. So, I disagree that it would make the main Sonic X article too long. If need be, to keep it brief, the in universe material could be trimmed. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE No notability, no reliable independent sources. Reads like OR. Delete and restore only when reliable sources are provided. Doduf (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I don't agree with the "merge" stances, but I at least understand them.~~ I don't understand a straight up delete though. Its a nationally published product (comic) of a decade spanning worldwide intellectual property (Sonic the Hedgehog (series)), and even has a sensible merge/redirect target. Sergecross73 msg me 19:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, it was a comic about Sonic the Hedgehog, nationally published for three years. However, this comic does not inherit notability just because it is about Sonic the Hedgehog. The bottom line for notability is sources, and we need a significant amount of them. It doesn't matter if these sources are from 2005 or these sources were published yesterday. The bottom line for this deletion nomination is that there is no such coverage available to warrant a standalone article about this comic series. Mz7 (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per GentlemanGhost. Even though it's based upon a notable anime and published by a notable publisher, that doesn't automatically make it notable; sources still need to be found and not many reliable ones exist for Sonic X (though I'm unfamiliar with comics so I may be wrong). satellizer (talk - contributions) 21:02, 21 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively into the "Other media" section of Sonic X. I was surprised to find no coverage in reliable sources, and with that appearing to be the case with others, I think this can be adequately covered within the article on the anime series without crossing the WP:UNDUE line. Gong show 03:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've changed my stance due to this. I was shocked not to be able to find anything, but I just haven't. I thought it was maybe just because I don't usually work on comic books and didn't know the sources, but there really hasn't even been anything that even seems possibly a reliable source. Its all Wikias, Youtube videos, and torrents, nothing remotely resembling a reliable source. It should be merged to the anime's article, I believe they're pretty closely related, so there shouldn't be any problems with WP:UNDUE if its handled right. (They have largely the same premise, characters, etc, I believe.) Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge; I don't usually make votes like this, but the article seems to have little hope of third-party sourcing and looks like it will fit just fine into the main Sonic X article. Tezero (talk) 03:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jazwood[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism D P 12:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks any sources. Articles should always have sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:52, 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 keep. Discussion regarding a rename, merging content and reorganization can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Bobo (comic book)[edit]

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

This comic book series is not specially notable. It's not covered by non-trivial third part sources. This article only list the dates of publications. All relevant information in the article is actually about the folkloric character Juan Bobo, that already has its own article. damiens.rf 16:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - This article does much more than "list the dates of publications." It also has sections on the Juan Bobo Character, First Publishing, Other Juan Bobo Published Media, Sales, and several other sections. It also has a highly detailed infobox. The article is also sourced with (as of this moment) 69 citations. Sarason (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, all relevant information in the article is actually about Juan Bobo the character. Only the section "Publishers" is about the comic books.
- It's even wrong to state that there is a comic book called "Juan Bobo" to write an article about. There are lots of comic books (and books, and plays...) about the public domain folkloric character Juan Bobo and that is it. What is this article about? --damiens.rf 10:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The comic book is notable and the over 60 reliable third party sources prove it. Notability is also established by the books having been printed by over 20 notable, reputable publishers during the last almost 100 years. Notability is further established by the several reviewers of the books, all independent, reputable parties (Kirkus Reviews, Library Journal, Publishers Weekly, Booklist, etc). It's odd the nomination claims lack of notability stating that "This article only list the dates of publications" and yet none of the 60+ citations in the article are linking to the table listing the dates of publications. Odd is also that nomination says "all relevant information is...about the folkloric character Juan Bobo" when the things discussed here, such as who where the book reviewers, who were the book publishers, over how long they the books published, what other venues published the stories (novels, plays, etc) of the book, who are the authors and illustrators of the book, etc., have nothing to do with the folkloric character itself but are attributes associated with the comic book series being nominated. Mercy11 (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is to have an article just about the character and other about the (comic) books about the character? Did I understand it right? Are the independently notable enough to have each on its own article? --damiens.rf 10:16, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede it may make some sense. This is what happens with Garfield (see Garfield (character)) and Dilbert (see Dilbert (character)). Is that the plan for Juan Bobo? Are the comic publications notable enough by themselves? --damiens.rf 10:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s.: There are not "over 60 reliable third party sources" in the article. Just over 60 "links used in the reference sections'". A lot of the are primary sources (usually the comic book in question), some links to blogs, and some other links pointing to online bookstores selling the books. --damiens.rf 10:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - how could WP not have an article about such a widely-distributed and long-lasting series? The logical approach would be to :
- (1) rename the existing Juan Bobo as Juan Bobo (character)
- (2) transfer most of the books & media material out of Juan Bobo (character) and merge into this one
- (3) rename this one as plain Juan Bobo

Leaving a main factual article about books, other media, educational use, etc. and another article about the character, his deeds and nature, and sociological significance.: Noyster (talk), 18:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sounds like a great idea. Done! Mercy11 (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Appears to not successfully pass WP:NMMA guidelines at this time. Please assume good faith in the discussion and my closure, thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Alers[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. Signing to a top tier organization is not near enough to the three top tier requirement especially since there is not anything else backing it up. ~~Also unsourced BLP.~~ Peter Rehse (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created WP:TOOSOON. He has no top tier fights. Since he signed with the UFC he may get them, but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 18:59, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA since he has no top tier fights and the references given are not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jim Alers was the CageWarriors World Champion at Featherweight before giving up his Title to join the UFC http://www.cagewarriors.com/news/article/ufc_switch_for_alers http://fightnetwork.com/news/45363:jim-alers-vacates-cage-warriors-title-signs-ufc-contract/ http://mmajunkie.com/2013/12/cage-warriors-63-results-ivan-buchinger-jim-alers-victorious-in-title-fights/ Alers was voted Cage Warriors Fighter of the Year for 2013 http://www.cagewarriors.com/news/article/alers_voted_2013s_best Jim Alers is named the #1 Featherweight prospect in the World http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2014/1/14/5309712/top-10-featherweight-prospects As a BJJ purple belt Jim won the AbuDhabi Pro Trials for Black belts http://vimeo.com/9171637 BalfreyMaddock (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Success in a second tier organization or lower belt ranking does not make him notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second tier championships don't show notability. Fails WP:NMMA. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 18:01, 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Layton[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Author of one of the "For Dummies" books and an Agile development coach. Nothing but promotional links available. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable person. Very specific stuff mentioned, but nothing showing how this is of concern on a wider scale.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if we found better sourcing, this stub's formatting is such a mess we'd have to start from scratch. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD-A7. Vectro (talk) 17:16, 30 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 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

361 Degree Minds[edit]

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

Balant POV and numerous claim without much notability other than mentioning of it in few news papers Shrikanthv (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I spent five minutes searching about for new articles, but the three in the "References" section are all I could come up with (or other articles mentioning the $1 million minority stake another company had purchased in 361 Degree Minds). That doesn't fit the "substantial coverage" I'd be looking for, per WP:N. Even if the article was cleaned up, and proper inline citations were used, it still wouldn't meet that "coverage" criteria. GRUcrule (talk) 15:39, 31 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 00:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mobiquant Technologies[edit]

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

Company is not notable. References given are primarily press releases, no reliable citations. Most of the editing has been done by single-use accounts, used only for this article. Article is not accurate, even a brief Google search will confirm that it is based in France. An article on the same company was deleted last year (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mobiquant) and I do not believe that anything has changed since then. Shritwod (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Large chunks of this article are pasted directly from the firm's website, so are a clear WP:COPYVIO. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The current iteration of the article is referenced to primary sources, also carrying a large sheaf of external links. Neither there nor elsewhere am I finding reason to overturn the 2013 AfD decision. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article hasn't been able to overcome any of the problems for which it was originally deleted and fails to meet the notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. One of the main sources for the article is an event announcement, which is where the WP:CORPDEPTH comes into play. The other article does appear to be an interview(?), but I don't read French. In all my searches, I failed to find anything other than press releases and announcements. But right now the bottom line seems to be that the company doesn't meet the WP:COMPANY standard.EBstrunk18 (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The French JDN article takes an interview form, but the questions are just feed lines about the firm's products. I did also find a similar type of Q&A from Global Security Mag in 2009, but again regard that as effectively a primary source. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global Traveler[edit]

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

I find numerous trivial mentions of this magazine in travel-related publications, but mostly press releases. Of the two non-press-release sources given in the article, only one shows any coverage of significance, and it's a niche trade publication. I'd say this almost qualifies as WP:CSD#A7 speedy delete but I'm uncertain, so I'm nominating it here. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability... --Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have no good standards for consumer magazines, unless there are major prizes, which may be too high a standard. Furthermore, I consider this one of the areas where the GNG is almost irrelevant as there are almost no places where there would be a relevant source that would be trivial or PR--or be a report of such a prize. I use the guide of whether it is a leading national magazine in its subject field. According to the article's ref 1, it has a circ of 100,000. Conde Nash Traveler has 800,000, DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 00:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Mason[edit]

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

Dab page with all redlink entries. Speedy declined for no reason, and apparently dabs can't be prodded. None of the Rodney Masons has a page, so having a dab page point them to nowhere is stupid. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator obviously doesn't understand deletion guidelines with respect to disambiguation. A redlink entry with regards to disambiguation is an entry that has only a redlink. These each have a blue link, and in at least some cases, the entries are valid per WP:DABMENTION. And the nominator further appears to have little regard for civility with edit summaries like this. older ≠ wiser 01:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say that a dab page can consist entirely of "mentions", though. What's the point in this, if none of the Rodney Masons has an article? It's horribly misleading. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree no where does it say that a dab page can consist of only mentions, but also no where does it say a dab page can't consist of only mentions. It is helpful to someone looking up Rodney Mason to direct them to an article that tells them something about the person. GB fan 01:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or it can confuse the heck out of them when they see nothing but redlinks on a dab page and don't expect the blue links to have the info they need. Common sense, people! Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - seems like this would be more suitable for a proposed move if we can agree this dab is still useful. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 05:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All meet MOS:DABRL or MOS:DABMENTION, and are helpful to the reader. The page contains bluelinks with info on these Rodney Masons. Meets guidelines, WP:USEFUL and nothing to be gained from deletion. Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: useful to have the various people disentangled, and offers links to the articles where they are mentioned. If there was one "Rodney Mason" who already had an article, no-one would reasonably object to these people being listed on the dab page. It's illogical to suggest that they shouldn't be made findable just because there isn't that one article. What would "confuse the heck" out of people is if they find no article and no dab page at "Rodney Mason", so no access to the mentions of these people. Nothing to be gained by deletion. PamD 18:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rodney Mason (rugby league) was recently deleted and can feasibly be removed for that reason. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it still meets MOS:DABMENTION / MOS:DABRL. Whether they are notable enough for their own article is irrelevant as to whether they are a valid dab entry. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, by your logic… My last name is Peacock, so I can legitimately put it on Peacock (surname) even though I'm clearly not notable enough for an article. I think I'll do that right now. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ten-pound hammer, you're being rather rude and confrontational on this. You've also misled on several people's comments, e.g. the speedy was not declined with no reason. I included links to the criteria, so you can see clearly that people cannot just add their name to a dab/surname page. If you disagree with the criteria, that's a different discussion for a different place. Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per MOS:DABRL and comments of several disambiguatistos above. --do ncr am 01:01, 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. → Call me Hahc21 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Daly Architects[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 00:59, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Fellow in the AIA. Projects have been written about extensively. Also some notability as an educator. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Candleabracadabra, Daly passes WP:CREATIVE. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:05, 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 keep. → Call me Hahc21 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Yorio[edit]

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

Does not meet general or basic notability standards. – S. Rich (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This obviously has huge sourcing issues, but if this is correct — "He is the former President and CEO of Xe Services [Blackwater]..." — then this is a notable public figure. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former DHL exec was apparently put in as part of a rebranding effort after the firm's previous well-deserved publicity problems. His subsequent departure was Covered in the Washington Post. Carrite (talk) 01:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, it follows that Yorio's March 2009 promotion to CEO of Blackwater/Xe was Covered by Fox News and others. Carrite (talk) 01:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Between points A and B, Yorio became a historical figure and part of scholarly study, exemplified by significant coverage in This Masters' Thesis, The Rebranding of Blackwater: The Effectiveness of a Name Change After Crisis,by Brittany Noble at American University. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackwater rebranding effort was also the subject of mainstream journalistic commentary, such as "Shaping Up Blackwater's Act," by David Isenberg for the Huffington Post. Carrite (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above is sufficient for a GNG pass. A CEO of a major corporation and thus a figure in the public eye. Shitty sourcing showing in the article notwithstanding... Carrite (talk)
Keep. Given Blackwater's notoriety, I think its CEO qualifies for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by OP: Please note that Yorio is written about at Academi#2009 XE Services LLC. (Academi is the current name for Blackwater.) With this in mind, I think his involvement, along with sourced background, can be covered in that section of the article (along with a redirect from his name). I do not see where he warrants a stand alone article. Also, Yorio's involvement with Blackwater/Xe came about a few years after the controversial Iraq War involvement. – S. Rich (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)22:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *Comment @ S. Rich your comments seem biased and personal. This person ranks a page equally or greater than many pages on here. Not only was he the CEO of Blackwater/Xe covered in numerous press releases and appeared in front of Congress. He is in Erik Prince's new book and is a decorated, medically retired Ranger and Green Beret combat veteran. This seems more than enough to fit GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocman23 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, please remember to comment on the argument, not the person making it. Secondly please remember that whether or not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is irrelevant to whether or not this article should exist. Being a "Ranger and Green Beret combat veteran" is not an indication of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Understood about commenting about others. Apologizes for any disrespect. I am new to this so I need to learn what I am doing. Understood opinion about being a Ranger and Green Beret but being the CEO of BW/Xe seems relevant to meNocman23
It may well be. However, another rule is that you can only !vote once in an AfD, so I've struck the "keep" part of your comment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 29 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 05:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Ayers[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball pitcher; no exceptional third-party sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 00:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Didn't play in the majors like the article claims.--Yankees10 02:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. article makes no claim to notability.Spanneraol (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wizardman. No bigs no article. John from Idegon (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor leaguers are not usually notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 00:43, 31 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 00:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lonzo Ayers[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; no exceptional third-party sources to pass GNG. Wizardman 00:03, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 02:09, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.. not remotely notable.. never played in the majors.. unremarkable minor league career. Spanneraol (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails Wikipedia:NBASEBALL. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 22:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the family history is interesting, it might be better included on his family's pages. Not notable enough for his own page. --PDX er1 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL. He's already mentioned in his son's article. Perhaps a redirect?204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as already stated above, not notable. Northern Antarctica (₵) 01:37, 31 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. A10 as a content fork/duplicate. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Scipio Aemlianus Africanus[edit]

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

This is a duplicate article for Scipio Aemilianus. The title (which contains a typo) is misleading because it makes it look like it's about a published biography of that person. Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK and per WP:NOTESSAY. ansh666 06:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per above. Nothing more to add. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 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.