Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 25 March 27 March >

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bura Sign Language[edit]

Bura Sign Language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One researcher, Blench, wrote a manuscript about this informal sign language used by hearing-impaired Bura people in the Kukurpu village in Nigeria. I tagged the article, with its one ref to an unpublished manuscript as needing reference improvements. Another editor removed the tag and said that the one ref was sufficient, and could not identify other reliable sources with significant coverage. I'm not sure that all local sign languages are inherently notable, and therefore propose the article for deletion. I do not question that it existed when the researcher was at the village. Edison (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • So what is the measure by which some sign languages are more notable than others? — Lfdder (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The researcher said that the village is "not on any map," and said that the gestural language was similar to that used elsewhere in the region. He also described a similar language used by one family. Would a one-family gestural language also be "inherently notable" if one used in a small not-on-the-map village of unspecified population is? The standard should be WP:N, and multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the standard's wp:N, why are we talking about some kind of 'inherent notability'? — Lfdder (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All languages are notable, just as all nations and all species are notable. This has been our established practice.
And yes, a one-family language is notable. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not familiar with the notability guideline which says what you assert Nor do I recall that as a common outcome of AFDs. Edison (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name one natural language article that was ever deleted? — kwami (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whereas WP:NFT is a valid reason for deletion, this isn't one of those cases. Unless it's the case that this language is a hoax, I don't see logic behind deleting the article on it. I could see a merge to Kilba people (where Bura people presently redirects), but it's specifically a language of the Bura people around Kukurpu... thus I feel a merge there might not satisfy WP:DUE. If there were a Kukurpu article, I would probably support a merge there, however. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless there is an established policy on languages (in which case someone should link to it), WP:N is indeed the standard. A language documented only in a single manuscript by a single researcher and with no other sources clearly fails WP:N. Vectro (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's mentioned in RSs (books, a peer-reviewed journal). They all cite Blench. — Lfdder (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Linguistics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, possible merge. The language has received significant coverage (an entire grammar devoted to it) in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. Vectro notes that there is currently no explicit policy on the notability of natural languages; perhaps there should be. It appears to be the case (kwami or others, correct me if I am wrong) that there is to date only one full grammar of the language, plus a small number of linguistics papers that cite that grammar. It is understandable that this would raise notability concerns, especially among editors who are not particularly interested in descriptive or "field" linguistics. As I suggest, though, the general notability guideline specifies only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we want to parse the plural "sources", note that the guideline goes on to say, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Plural sources are generally expected but not required if the source offers high quality, in-depth treatment of the subject. To the possible merge: there appear to be a number of village sign languages that have only one or two sources. It might be preferable (but not strictly necessary) to bundle these into a longer article. Cnilep (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far we've heard about an unpublished monograph by Blench, which others have cited. What significant coverage other than that one item are you talking about? "Source" does not equal "sources." Is Blench's short paper a "full grammar?" It says it is similar to other informal sign languages in the region. Would a redirect or merger would be appropriate? Edison (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge it into. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then there should be an article, since the Blence manuscript says it is similar to other informal gestural systems in the region,(with many of the gestures the same as those used by hearing persons worldwide, such as for driving a car by turning the wheel back and forth) and it makes little sense to maintain articles for similar gesture patterns in every village, with many of the stub articles having no reliable sources or one source.Edison (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Isn't this the only Nigerian village sign language we have an article on? Do you want it merged under village sign language? — Lfdder (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be like merging Cayuse into List of unclassified languages of North America or Indigenous languages of the Americas. It would have undue weight in a general article. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This language is very probably an isolate which makes it exceptionally notable. LiliCharlie (talk) 05:22, 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. Tawker (talk) 07:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RevZilla[edit]

RevZilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is not one single serious news or magazine article about RevZill. Besides press releases, the only coverage is pure fluff written by "media consultants". Being an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year Award Finalist does not meet WP:COMPANY. The GPCC Emerging Business of the Year Award is a purely local award, open only to "emerging" (i.e. new and non-notable) businesses.

The upshot of these problems is that we have nothing of substance to create an article with. We need objective facts from independent sources, and without that we have nothing but unreliable, unverifiable company PR. Note that the article is all the work of COI single-purpose accounts, VifferSwiffer (talk · contribs) and Cgingrich (talk · contribs) Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom -- sourcing is too weak to satisfy WP:CORP guideline. — Brianhe (talk) 21:39, 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. - Bilby (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's Flowers[edit]

Scott's Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only local notability, reads like an ad, talks of a dead cat that still stops traffic. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Advertising is semi-evident, little real notability, and information regarding the death of an owner's cat is painfully local. Flipandflopped (talk) 20:18, March 26, 2014 (UTC)
The link for the source on that one is also dead. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found significant coverage of Katie's significant coverage of a man stopping traffic. If only we knew his motives. Perhaps he was doing it as a nod to the cat. But no, until some daring independent reporter ties it all together, my position hasn't changed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It totally looks like an add. I can't see any relevance.--Fjsalguero (talk) 18:52, 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. Tawker (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Rattray[edit]

Jennifer Rattray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not see notability. Neither the news reader career northe university career is notable, and the references are all local. The point of not relying of such local refs for notability of local people under the GNG is thatthey tend to be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with DGG. This individual has numerous noteworthy accomplishment. 1 Rattray was a local newsreader, 2) she starred in a made for TV film on the TNN network, and 3) she is the first (yes first) Associate Vice President of Indigenous, Government, and Community Affairs. I am sure this position is relatively unique among universities in Canada, and possibly the world. It would be a shame if the world was not made aware of her contributions to news reading, TV acting, and university governing. Do not silence the voice of this strong first nations women, I beg you, please keep the Wikipedia entry alive! RussTBagg (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— RussTBagg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - Unless there is something else that isn't already in the article. I'm afraid she might not meet notability standards. Perhaps her career as a journalist might help the cause; did she win any notable awards? The VP of most universities is not notable, neither is the president. The associate VP of Indigenous, government, and community affairs probably isn't going to cut it, I'm sorry to say. Bali88 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::Awards Yes, indeed she did win many fine and noteworthy awards: a Manitoba Motion Picture Blizzard Award, two Gracie Allen Awards from the Foundation of American Women in Radio and Television, New York City, and several Radio and Television News Directors Association and Can-Pro awards. Ballsdeep Singh (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)— Ballsdeep Singh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. *Keep I also disagree with DGG and Bali88. She is a Canadian legend, a journalist, has starred in a movie with Rob Lowe, and is a pioneer in her community. She is likely the first indigenous VP in a Canadian university, which is very notable. Deleting the page is an affront to her people and is neo-colonial. Decuw[reply]

Is she really that famous in Canada? Bali88 (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::Indeed Bali88 Rattrey is a bit of a local celebrity in Manitoba, and her profile is well known across First Nations and Indigenous communities in Canada. She is a pioneer who speaks across the country on issue facing her people. On top of this, she is married to a well-known Football coach, is a local film actress who has starred alongside Rob Lowe and was the first Female Aboriginal News Anchor in Canada, as well as a TV host on the Canadian national Women's Televison Network (WTN) in the mid-1990s. She truly is notable. Ballsdeep Singh (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on contribution histories, I'm assuming that ballsdeep singh, Decuw, and dickphatsingh are all alternate usernames for you (which, for the record, that's just fine, several users have alternate accounts), but FYI, you are only entitled one vote per person per AFD. :-) Bali88 (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::: Bali88 I am confused? I thought this was a discussion, not a vote? Can we not be part of an inclusive dialogue? Ballsdeep Singh (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC) — Ballsdeep Singh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You can discuss it at much and as passionately as you want. The part that I'm pointing out is that you put "keep" in bold twice, which makes it appear that two people voted to keep as opposed to only one. If you think she's notable, you should argue that point till your heart's content. I unbolded it for you ;-) Bali88 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::::::::::: Miigwech! (that is thank-you in Ojibwa) Ballsdeep Singh (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)— Ballsdeep Singh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, just in case there was any confusion, it's not a vote in terms of majority wins. What happens is an admin takes into account the way the vote went, but also looks at the arguments that are made. So like if a church of satan leader were to come up to AFD and three people voted to keep him on the notability factor, and 17 came by and voted to delete because his work was blasphemous, it's unlikely to be deleted despite a 17-3 vote to delete. That argument lacks merit. Also, if the vote is going the other way for this particular article, what another option would be is to do a redirect and have a blurb about her on another article. Perhaps University of Winnipeg or First Nation under notable First Nation people. :-)Bali88 (talk) 14:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I would translate "local celebrity" as "not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia." DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article text says she "had a small role in the 2002 made for TV film Framed which starred Rob Lowe." Arguing here that she's notable because she "starred in a movie with Rob Lowe" and "starred alongside Rob Lowe" seems a bit of a stretch. Also, how does being married to a high school football coach make someone notable? He doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article to establish that he's notable but this is somehow supposed to make his wife notable. Cmr08 (talk) 06:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't silence the voice of this pathbreaking Aboriginal Woman. Deleting this article would be confirmation of neocolonial practices at Wikipedia. I pray to the Creator that you will not carry out such an act of cultural genocide. Haven't our First Nations people suffered enough? Miigwech! Ballsdeep Singh (talk) 13:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like many legends, there's only a kernel of truth here (or, in this case, notability). --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mid-level administrator, news reader, and "local celebrity" are not notable per se, regardless of her ethnic heritage. Agricola44 (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Very weak keep per WP:BARE - as an associate VP of a university, she's not clearly notable, but there might be enough sources to get her to general notability as a first First Canadian to get to such positions of power. I am concerned this might be used as a soapboax or coatrack for other issues and controversies. I removed a BLP violaiton. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the article lede is a little convoluted, but I don't think it says that she is the first First Canadian to be appointed to a particular established position. Rather, it appears that a new position called "Associate Vice-President of Indigenous, Government, and Community Affairs" was created at her institution and that she (who happens to be a First Canadian) is the inaugural holder. Such a position is akin to an assistant provost at US institutions, i.e. a mid-level administrative position and therefore not notable per se, regardless of her ethnic heritage. I think this misunderstanding is fueled by the assertion above from Decuw: "She is likely the first indigenous VP in a Canadian university, which is very notable" (emphasis mine). This is bald speculation. Agricola44 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you, changing to delete. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*keep This strong aboriginal woman is a national icon and an inspiration to aspiring news readers and administrators coast to coast. Keep the entry. RussTBagg (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You get one vote, dude. I gave you the benefit of the doubt the first time. Bali88 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:::: Wow! Thanks, I guess? RussTBagg (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nevermind the support from the sockpuppets a lack of independent, reliable secondary sources indciates that the subject fails WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any argument that local notability for underrepresented minorities could constitute notability? valereee (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is any precedent for this. I would be fine with keeping it if so. Unfortunately, due to notability requirements, wikipedia is skewed toward whatever biases our society has. There may be an argument there. Bali88 (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be a form of special pleading to relax requirements for an under-represented group. We typically reject this line of argument, for example here and here. Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete – this is a non-notable person. Besides, sockpuppet votes don't count. Epicgenius (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if the rules are the rules and Canadian TV news readers are not "notable" according to Wiki Policy, why are the following entries not also removed: Camilla Di Giuseppe, Denelle Balfour, Nathalie Chung, Kris Reyes, Janet Stewart just to name a few? Why single this entry out? Fairness? RussTBagg (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to stick this in your sandbox and keep it there so that if later, she gains some notability, you won't lose your work. Also, what I think will fly is to include a mention of her on the page about First Nation people. Many articles have sections like "notable people" that she could very easily fit into. If this page gets deleted, which it probably will, you could do a redirect to that page. Bali88 (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::::okay, fair enough. But what about my point above regarding other pages of non-notable TV readers? Are these all due to be deleted? Did you check any of the above pages? Just curious. RussTBagg (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not. The above people may or may not meet notability standards and quite possibly be up for deletion if someone nominates them. Sometimes it's just a case of one article has been noticed and another has not. "Other stuff exists" is not supposed to be a rationale for inclusion in wikipedia and there are guidelines against use of that rationale in AFD discussions. I'd really love for her to find a place in wikipedia, but I'm not sure that there is an argument to be made for her own article. I think a mention on Aboriginal Canadian personalities is your best bet at this point in time. If she is as noteworthy as you say she is, there will be more news coverage of her in coming years and you can try again then. Also, you might look into joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Discrimination. Your interest in improving articles on indigenous Canadians could really be a blessing on wikipedia :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She also may have a place on the University of Winnipeg page. Bali88 (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is a non-sequitur – each article is evaluated on its own merit. But since you brought it up, please note that several of these have either been notability-tagged or brought to AfD since yesterday. Agricola44 (talk) 12:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Is the strikethrough of all the comments really necessary? He didn't deny being all posters and I already cancelled the multiple votes and pointed out that all are the one poster. His viewpoint on the topic is still relevant, imo. Bali88 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since those comments are from a block evading sock, yes. "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block." per WP:EVADE. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Was he making comments after another account was blocked? Maybe I just have too much sympathy for people, but I think this user could be a useful editor to wikipedia. I don't think he did any of this with malice. I'd hate to think he's indefinitely blocked. Bali88 (talk) 13:53, 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 merge to University of Regina. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

University of Regina Department of Computer Science[edit]

University of Regina Department of Computer Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The department does not show any sourcing that would have notability. A redirect to the University page would make more sense since the page fails notability standards. Vonaurum (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems right, no grounds provided in article to justify a stand-alone. Jordanee155 (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above account Jordanee155 has been indefinitely blocked as a sock abusing multiple accounts to influence a (different) AfD. A pattern suggests this !vote was made to hide the editors tracks and true intentions as a SPA. -- GreenC 16:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:48, 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Systems intelligence[edit]

Systems intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reasons provided in several entries on the article's talk page Espoo (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure. But probably its WP:TOOSOON. As it is said, the concept was introduced in 2002. But till now probably there is not enough researchers from different research groups so the it can be kept in wikipedia. If enough references are added then people can think of keeping the article on Wikipedia. Some references are there in the article. But all the articles are from a single group. Unatnas1986 (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be so little in the whole concept that nobody is interested in commenting on this. To me it is clear that this topic is way below the threshold of acceptable articles. The number of publications on the topic is very low, and the number of citations is very low (and almost exclusively limits to the inventors of the concepts), so this cannot possibly be of general interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.233.179.227 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A quick web search doesn't show many relevant results, but this seems to be a subset of systems thinking that's largely done by one research group. Maybe merge if it gets notable enough. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11, "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica1000 02:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZodTTD[edit]

AfDs for this article:
ZodTTD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been AfD'ed before, and its discussion is less than satisfying: the only reliable source that says anything is a Wired interview (linked in the article), and what that verified is little more than "this person created VLC4iPhone"--and that is not something that has received a lot of coverage, to put it mildly. There's a few other hits, like this on a blog. But that's not much, and it doesn't need pointing out that the article in its current state is--God only knows what it is. A mess, that's what.

If you're going to go "keep" on this, please do so with some real reliable sources, and please turn this article into something acceptable. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 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) 17:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: There's a LOT of mentions of him in various forms across the web, but not really anything in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 20:47, 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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Anwar[edit]

Taj Anwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Believed not to be notable. Submitting for 184.75.114.3 (talk · contribs) Auric talk 21:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:43, 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) 17:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reela Hota[edit]

Reela Hota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:GNG. The author is related per their admission, which may be clouding their judgement as to the degree of notability. Primary links and self published sites are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can be closed as withdrawn by any independent party. AllyD did a good job of digging up some harder to find sources, pushing the subject past the bar for establishing notability. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand where the nomination is coming from - the current wording's focus on parents and wording like "who has several performances to her credit" don't smack of notability. However, I have found items of press coverage in the Hindusan Times etc. (a couple now added as references), which leaves the question whether they add up to demonstration of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD:, I don't have a High Beam account anymore, and for some reason, Hindustan's main site doesn't pull up that rather recent article, but I trust your experience so if you are confident they establish notability, you can consider this a withdrawal. If not, we should probably let it get relisted again. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Srath I have added a number of links to show her notability including TV which was uploaded by India's National TV Doordarshan at YouTube. In addition many other newspaper articles and references. Is there anything else that I need to do? Of course I will add at least one video ...once I learn how to add video to Wikipedia. AllyD (talk). Thanks...I have learnt a lot from this. Sanjay Rath 07:52, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica's Tales Around the World[edit]

Britannica's Tales Around the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established. Apart from blogs and affiliated sourced (EB itself, webshops) this short article from EW mentions this cartoon series, but I don't consider it significant coverage by itself. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 16:20, 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) 17:14, 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. Thanks everyone for their comments. Please assume good faith. Closing based on failing WP:ORG and WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euphrates Institute[edit]

Euphrates Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 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, Mz7 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete created by a single purpose editor. The sources are not entirely reliable in meeting WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion, and the user who originally added the deletion tag didn't actually create the nomination page. There are no outstanding arguments for deletion. If any user wishes to further pursue deletion of this page, they may speedily renominate for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC), revised 00:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Société Française de Génie des Procédés[edit]

Société Française de Génie des Procédés (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination apparently withdrawn, but tag left behind.Jordanee155 (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dog On A leash[edit]

Dog On A leash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD; rationale was "Fails WP:NSONG and WP:CRYSTAL." ansh666 16:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there does not appear to be enough material to warrant a standalone article at this time. These Loudwire pieces are the best I could come up with. A redirect (using the proper capitalization) would be appropriate.  Gong show 19:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale above. Should not be considered for redirect because of incorrect capitalization. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:24, 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. Wizardman 11:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Morrissey[edit]

Adam Morrissey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor league baseball player. The ABL is not one of the leagues of 'inherent notability' per WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 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, → Call me Hahc21 16:04, 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. Thanks everyone for your participation and please assume good faith with this closure. SarahStierch (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elio Carletti[edit]

Elio Carletti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable painter (I can't even find anything he made, and I noticed that a legitimate painter "Mario Carletti" does exist and has no bio at all but no relation. Very odd and probably just a very old joke. Jane (talk) 15:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is known not for his work as a painter but the quotation attributed to him. If we are judging the article on his work as a painter I would say delete the article. But since it is his quotation that is famous I say KEEP. --Daffydavid (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the quote is not by a fictional character in a movie? I really don't think there is any evidence this person existed. Jane (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? --Daffydavid (talk) 07:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No I am not kidding. I am ok with having people in painter categories whose claim to fame is not painting (like Hitler), but I am not ok with having people in a painting category who only exist in movies. Jane (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your supposition that he is only a fictional character in the movies is is the only real issue here. Does repeating it make it seem more real?--Daffydavid (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, my supposition has to do with slapping a proper stub on the article and throwing it into another category as a way to save it from deletion. The main issue is the lack of any reliable references in the article to support the claim that this person is a notable painter. Jane (talk) 12:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable painter. Also, people who did not make any real headway as painters and that no one ever follows any of their paintings should not be in painter categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable painter. I tried but I didn't find anything Dishv80 (talk) 13:35, 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. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Popup Chinese[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Popup Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First result was a keep, though I note that the sources added don't seem to be particularly notable, nor do they provide significant depth. One is a Google search that shows three passing mentions on Forbes' Chinese site; another doesn't mention it at all, and another is just a link to it's iTunes listing. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There should be an indication that there's significant coverage in reliable sources, but it does not since the sources are not particularly notable. Some of the sources are not particularly independent either. --Cold Season (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails corporate notability, is largely self-promotional while some of the sources are either self-published or weak on reliability. ► Philg88 ◄ ♦talk 14:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've had a look for additional sources and couldn't find any. The sources given in the article are either self published blogs, or commercially attached to Popup Chinese thus lacking independence, or both so failing WP:RS. Ergo it does not pass corporate notability. Rincewind42 (talk) 05:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I've tidied up the inappropriate links and dubious claims that were based on them. What's left is a collection of blog posts as references, nothing that looks like a reliable source, not enough for notability.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:59, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dele Alampasu[edit]

Dele Alampasu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator on the grounds that he had won the U-20 World Cup. This does not confer notability as WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being part of a Country's highest National soccer Team to a FIFA sanctioned tournament used in the monthly FIFA rankings as stated here and here should be enough reason for it to stay. Although he was never fielded for a game in the CHAN but he was still part of the team (23 man squad). A cap in the tournament is counted equivalent to a cap in the World cup according to FIFA. Darreg (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - but as you stated, he never played. Being part of a squad does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY. Had he been capped that would be fine, but he wasn't, so unless you can provide significatn reliable sources providing non-routine coverage of his career to satisfy GNG then it is difficult to put an argument forward for the article to be kept. Fenix down (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:IMO I just think all players that have represented their countries at the highest level in MAJOR soccer tournaments should be conferred with notability.
Whether he played or not, it does not change the fact that he is an African Nations Cup Bronze winner(3rd place).
Its just like saying that if Roy Hodgson should pick an English under-17 player that have never played in ANY professional league(or game) before to the World Cup (or Euros) and England eventually wins the world cup (or Euros) regardless of the fact that the player in question did not get a single cap does not change the fact that he is a World Cup winner. And being a world cup (or Euro) winner should speak notability. likewise picking the bronze medal in an African Nations Cup should also speak notability.
I would be bringing some reliable citations soon to satisfy GNG more. Darreg (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you completely miss the point that has been repeatedly made, WP:NFOOTY requires either an appearance in a FULLY professional league or an appearance for the senior international team. Being called up and not featuring does not count. Alampasu, has not represented his country in any tournament, he has merely been in the squad. Your opinion is completely at odds with established consensus. Please also be aware that any other sources to satisfy GNG should not be simply match reports, squad listings and the like as these are considered routine reporting. Fenix down (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ok noted. I think I understand your point better now Darreg (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No problem. If you can find interview, articles on the player specifically, or other such sources, please link them in this discussion. I am happy to change my vote if you can show that he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 13:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @JMHamo:@GiantSnowman: Here is a biographical article on the subject Here is a comprehensive interview with the subject by an independent source and here contains a press statement from FIFA inviting him to Zurich for an event. If I may add he is also a National honour recipient. I believe that this cadet soccer player has significant coverage that passes GNG. Darreg (talk) 07:21, 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 KEEP. SpinningSpark 13:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper De Mulder Group[edit]

Prosper De Mulder Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be a notable company. Much of this page is a significant attack on the company, but the group does not appear to have the notability necessary to sustain an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Subject of an MMC report, Parliamentary questions and apparently had a key role in the spread of vCJD, all backed with good sources. The balance of the article could be better, but there's enough for notability. Dalliance (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're in the article. Ref. 6 (Competition Commission website) for MMC report, ref. 16 (Former PM's website) for PMQs and ref. 11 (displays link for Sunday Times article - this should be changed to the Internet Archive version) for vCJD. Dalliance (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep -- The MMC report and involvement in BSE are quite enough to amke the company notable. As I read the article, its business is in processing slaughter house waste into useable products. As such it is engaged in producing ingredients for the food industry. Such middlemen tend not to operate in the face of the public; indeed they may purposely keep a low profile, but that does not prevent them being notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 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 04:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Care in the United Kingdom[edit]

Direct Care in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no useful content. Platitudinous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, no reason to believe it's notable. After reading the article, I'm still not sure what it is. Profession? Business? The practice of taking care of people? Greedo8 17:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essentially a dictionary definition for a concept. No refs. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears a neologism and original research (WP:NOR) by a one day editor. Why wasn't the author notified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 07:36, 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. (non-admin closure) Northern Antarctica (₵) 03:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yasunori Hayashi[edit]

Yasunori Hayashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an obscure person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by No1CBFan (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWith all due respect, User:Ahecht, this scientist does meet WP:PROF, as is evident from his GS h-index of 39. [2] Jinkinson talk to me 00:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The standards in WP:PROF don't say that an h-index determines notability, and 39 is just a WP:BIGNUMBER. From WP:PROF: "Measures of citability such as the h-index, g-index, etc., may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. Also, they are discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citations than others." Also: "GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites and other self-published sources. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be significantly more than the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only." --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:58, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The warning above is directed at people who are not familiar with the world of scholarly publishing and citations. Most of the other contributors to this AfD, from their edit records, are. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong keep on basis of stunning cites on Google scholar. 9-edit nominator is invited to withdraw the nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • The nominator seems to have been here only on Sept 20 of last year... The AfD has languished in limbo since then. Somebody must have transcluded it correctly yesterday. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Along with the clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 (two papers with over 1000 cites each in Google scholar, etc) I think the Japan Academy Medal is the sort of "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national level" that is described by #C2. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This AFD was created more than six months ago by an editor who has made two--count 'em, two--edits since then, one of which was to create a talk page for a nonexistent user, and none of which have occurred more recently than September 20, 2013. I think we're wasting our time trying to communicate with him. However, I can't help but wonder why this malformed and misinformed AFD languished for so long before anyone noticed it. Jinkinson talk to me 04:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per the above. --Randykitty (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The citation evidence is not overwhelming for this field, but the career corpus and participation in some impactful work would seem to meet at least WP:ACADEMIC.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Requires some prose, but clearly a significant researcher. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:30, 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. There is no indication that this is more than a passing news fad; thus WP:NOTNEWS carries the day. Huon (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 banker suicides[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. UnifiedLeft (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2014 banker suicides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Problems with neutrality and synthesis. It's just a loose list of suicides of anybody who might in some way be connected to the finance industry, used as a soapbox for "a deep-seated guilt amongst bankers as they realize that they are harmful to people in order to make money". Some of the cited sources actually take pains to point out that there isn't a rash of banker suicides in 2014, or point out that suicide is hardly specific to workers in one industry. bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A coatrack for non-notable entries that are a slow-newsday fodder. And about 7 years too late. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." This article is notable. It has been covered by NY Post, Bloomberg News and Washington Post amongst other mainstream news sources. A simple search on any mainstream search engine of '2014 banker suicides' will produce hundreds of news results. If the POV is faulty or there is a soapbox being used, then the article requires cleanup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs)
  • Conditional Keep Cleanup is necessary - bobrayner is correct in the fact that it has problems with neutrality. I now agree with UnifiedLeft that the topic is indeed notable enough to deserve an article, as per WP:GNG However, that makes the status of the article no better. If the article remains unedited or unfixed, then at least a temporary withdrawal of the article is called for until it can be adequately repaired. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now changed to Keep. --Flipandflopped (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This deletion discussion is the target of a WP:Canvassing campaign on Reddit. VanIsaacWScont 22:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for finding that, Vanisaac. This Redditor's contributions make it clear that the article is just a soapbox. For instance:

      I don't mind if its because of a "confirmation bias", "conspiracy", or an "investigation". Let's put the idea of bankers killing themselves where it belongs... our collective conscious (via Wikipedia)! Let's try to normalize banking suicides by promoting them ... Publicize and encourage the suicide of those responsible for the economic collapse, bailouts for the super-rich, and daily pillagers of the public's money by promoting them. Pleze expand the "2014 Banker Suicides" Wikipedia Page

      bobrayner (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course its a soapbox, but its not "just a soapbox" its a notable entry that is poorly written. So, remove the soapbox and move on. "Article content does not determine notability" "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." UnifiedLeft (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lugnuts (and many of the responding redditors, incidentally). This paragraph from one of the sources in the article puts it well:

Regardless, this morbid fascination of suicides within the community of financial professionals may be nothing more than random fluctuations in data. We won't know until someone actually studies the data.

That source also has a sentence which refers to this very article. I don't think it reflects well on Wikipedia for it to be there. ansh666 22:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It only matters if the subject is notable, "Ansh666" quotes a mainstream article about the subject that she/he is claiming is not noteworthy. There are hundreds of articles about the subject. If you want to frame the entry as a myth ie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunny_Man <--- this silly article then fine. But the fact that you can find so many articles about the subject is what makes it notable not whether you believe that the phenomena is "real". Be real, if you don't like the way its written, then frame it as a myth or discredited, but don't act like its made up, it is being covered by major news sources.UnifiedLeft (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, if notability has been gained by high-ranking media outlets (i.e Washington Post, NY Post) then it deserves an article as per WP:GNG. Obviously, as I stated before, cleanup is necessary. Also, a criticism section could be made to express any doubts and criticisms. --Flipandflopped (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cited articles from CNN, Newsday, RT, Bloomberg, Fox News, ZeroHedge, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, the Atlantic, and Business Insider which focused on multiple cases as a group, just like this article does. I strongly encourage people to remove the soapbox and POV if they exist and clean up this article. Wikipedia guidelines state, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Its been demonstrated that this article's subject matter is more notable than 99.9% of articles on Wikipedia. I think it is proper to remove the "marked for deletion" and clean it up if it needs.UnifiedLeft (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — For all those interested, I am considering conducting a major reconstruction of the article over the next day or two using more adequate information presented in the sources rather than simply listing all of the suicides. If any possible deletion could hold off until then, it would be much appreciated - all this article needs is a major re-write. --Flipandflopped (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • agreed That sounds like a great idea Flipandflopped — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnifiedLeft (talk • contribs) 00:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not entirely surprising that UnifiedLeft and Flipandflopped agree; the former account's only purpose is to promote this polemic and the latter account was created less than 24 hours ago. Which brings us back to the Reddit canvassing.

Of course the article is a soapbox, its my soapbox. You have every right to remove me from my soapbox and adjust the POV. But the article should not be deleted because although its biased as hell (i wrote it lol, of course its biase) it should be cleaned up and NOT deleted because it is notable as verified by 3rd parties which is IAW Wikipedia rules.

bobrayner (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two Bloomberg articles state that there's no trend here, just a bit of media sensationalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. If the article were broadened, maybe it would work, but to pinpoint 2014 for what may (or may not even) be a statistical blip - rather than, say, 1929 - is a bit weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's very difficult to establish epidemiological clusters. An article of this type would need to include epidemiological research ie. suicide cluster (aka copycat suicide); otherwise it's magical thinking, amateur hour. The Bloomberg article concurs.[3] -- GreenC 01:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this "debate" is about people not liking the subject matter. There are articles on Wikipedia about aliens, tarot card readers, and many other subjects that we may believe (or know) to be false. But that's not a reason to delete the articles. Now "Clarityfiend" wants to cite 2 articles and claim that the fact that they dispute that the suicides that they are reporting on represent a trend, fine, say that in the entry. But don't try and say on one hand I can find all of these articles that address a certain subject and on the other hand say what they are addressing is not "real" so I have to delete the entry. Lots of things on Wikipedia aren't "real", unicorns, trickle-down economics, a whole host of things, but you still find an entry for them. This phenomena has been covered by CNN, Wall Street Journal, NY Post, Bloomberg, RT, and many more news outlets which are cited in the entry. You can't say that its not being covered, because it is and I've already proven that. What you should do is to fix the POV and bias. I strongly suspect that the reasons you have claimed for deleting this entry(which I have defeated already) are not the real reasons why you want to delete this entry.UnifiedLeft (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons do you suggest? bobrayner (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cluster scares happen all the time, they are tabloid news fare. They can still be notable, is this one? There's no long term coverage: most of the sources date within a few weeks of each other, within the past month or so. There are also no experts, no epidemiologists, just journalism sensationalism. It appears to be garden variety run of the mill cluster scare. If there was long term coverage, and reliable sources from experts, I would be more inclined. -- GreenC 01:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Um, excuse me, but what happened to Assume Good Faith? I try not to take offence to the personal claims against me being a "fake account" Although I guess I am reasonably suspicious, being new, but I assure you I am nothing but a new editor to wikipedia, and it is wikipedia policy not to assume vandalism. Does it not say something that bobrayner is now down to the point of accusing other wikipedians with opposing viewpoints of being vandals? I am not attempting to promote any sort of agenda for anyone, and only wish to improve the article, so please, do not harass. I may be new, but by my understanding is that the WP:GNG qualifies an article on any subject that has gained any so much notability as being eligible for an article, no matter how wrong any reporting may have been. The article could go on to later mention that the entire theory ended up being false, but the article still stands. Any opinions that ALL media outlets had on the speculation can be included in the article in a criticism section or etcetera. I am NOT vandalizing, and I apologize if it appeared this way to anyone (somehow). If I am misinterpreting the 'notability' policy, please let me know, but as of this point I will continue to do all I can to improve this article. Thanks. --Flipandflopped (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just because news organizations have reported on the topic, that disqualifies it as news? It's a theory proposed by journalists which has gained significant amounts of notability and criticism alike in the media, and therefore deserves representation on wikipedia. If everything the NYP has ever reported on is now ineligible on the behalf of it being news, then, well... --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Major rewrite is now available. Can we start fresh with this rewrite? I neutralized and bettered the article, and added a criticism section. Notability is obvious, the article is protected by WP:GNG, and has been noted and reported upon by countless reliable media outlets, all with different opinions on the legitimacy of the topic. With those qualifications, that is something wikipedia readers most definitely should have the ability to find here as par Wikipedia Regulations. If the article is deleted, so be it, but I would appreciate a real response. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From what I've seen in what I've read, this is just a bunch of media sensationalism, loosely connecting suicides that have happened all over the place with the one common similarity of bankers. I'm not sure if it is notable. Something to remember: "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SOAPBOX, and probably fails notability criteria. ~FeedintmParley 02:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your respectful input. What if we were to more clearly outline the "2014 Banker Suicides" as a notable theory amongst the media? Does the article have to suggest that the Suicides are in any way relevant - could it not just be about their appearance in the media and their usage by journalists? Isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral as to what outside sources deem to be relevant? My goal with my edit was to provide the opinion of the two different media outlets without explicitly saying which of the two had the relevant opinion. I apologize if the article is irrelevant.. but I still think that a negative critical analysis of a theory made by a credible paper (BusinessWeekly) - that theory being of a correlation in suicides amongst bankers - is a notable critical analysis. Am I wrong? If so, please specify, as I generally am not sure if I am correct or not. I still am trying to get used to what is acceptable on wikipedia and what isn't. :) thanks for any consideration. --Flipandflopped (talk) 02:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply — note: I think the user Bearian meant that the article qualifies as an 'unusual article', not that just because we have unusual articles the article is immune to deletion.
  • Delete per WP:NOT as stated above. As Feedintm pointed out, as well, even the number of news articles being used as sources are are not necessarrily sufficient as signifigant coverage. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. I don't for a moment suppose that there is any significant suicide phenomenon, but there is a significant media phenomenon. In exactly the same way that having an article on the Tulip Mania does not mean that we believe tulip bulbs will rise in price for ever, the article does not endorse the theory it discusses. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
^This is my POV. Bali88 (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well the tulip bulb thing is a famous episode in history. This is a some news articles with no enduring quality. If there was some reason to suspect this could have enduring quality, I would have !vote Keep. But cluster scares happen all the time, they are like bus plunge stories, they are common. NOTNEWS tells us to be careful about making too much of something just because it was reported in the news. -- GreenC 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep New additions to the page have removed the POV and substantiated notability claim.BankingCrisis (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete One of the references in the article [4] mentions the coverage this got, and stated it even has its own Wikipedia page, linking to this article. It then shows clear evidence that this isn't a real thing, it just nonsense. Over thirty thousand suicides a year, does it matter if six of the people were in the same industry? Dream Focus 08:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You omit the fact that all 6 were within weeks of each other and were all public deaths, significantly trimming down that '30,000' number to mere hundreds of public suicides. Sure, it may be nothing at all, but even if the theory is nonsense, the media coverage and analysis is significant enough for it to have an article. As for wikipedia being mentioned, editors or the community ourselves have no control what our readers (such as the writer of the bloomberg article) choose to do with our information. How the information presented on wikipedia is used in other contexts is irrelevant to the article's sanctity in my opinion. --Flipandflopped (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It may be a flash in the pan that is forgotten next year, but for the time being it's notable. If no one remembers it later on down the road, we can always delete it then. It's getting substantial press for the time being though. Bali88 (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "flash in the pan" what WP:NOTNEWS (#2) is? -- GreenC 15:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it *is* one, I'm saying we might find out next year that is was one and was very quickly forgotten. However, it's relevant now. If it becomes not relevant, we can always remove it laterBali88 (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Because it is about bankers who happen to commit suicide. If the article was was about people who committed suicide BECAUSE they were bankers then it would be notable. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In support of earlier keep recommendation: The article is not about bankers who happen to commit suicide. This article is notable because it is about the 2014 banker suicides which the media (Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, RT, Business Insider, et al) is reporting on.UnifiedLeft (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking duplicate vote. ansh666 22:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Ansh666 should be reminded of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus "WP:CON" and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Polling_is_not_a_substitute_for_discussion "WP:Vote". Please do not strikethrough others' comments in the future. Thank you.BankingCrisis (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you're not going to bother to follow the rules here, please just go away. From WP:AFDFORMAT: You can explain your earlier recommendation in response to others, but do not repeat your recommendation on a new bulleted line. There's context for that statement on the page, I'm deliberately not giving it so that you'll read it. ansh666 22:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It is perfectly reasonable to strike a second !vote from the same user. Try Reading WP:AFDFORMAT. Flat Out let's discuss it 23:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It's not a vote. And you are trying to make it look like they changed positions. So, don't try to convince people this is a vote and don't strike-through others' comments and try to make it seem like they changed their minds.
Your reference says: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." & "Do not make conflicting recommendations; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and after the *, as in "• Delete Keep".UnifiedLeft (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if you're going to do it that way, keep it unbolded. And stop lecturing AfD regulars on the "rules" of the place. ansh666 19:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NOT#NEWS Secret account 03:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that simply stamping "not news" is a valid argument. 1. Shouldn't any concensus be reached through showing how the the entry should be classified as "not news". Are we to assume all the premises and conclusions that "User:Secret" has by one stamp with no context? 2. The afd guidlines direct that notability is a standard that if me guarantees an entry should be acceptable. For reasons demonstrated by several others earlier, this entry has achieved the "notability" standard. One would have to demonstrate that "notability" has not been achieved.BankingCrisis (talk) 06:26, 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 List_of_Law_&_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit_characters#The_Stabler_family. SpinningSpark 14:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Scaperrotta[edit]

Jeffrey Scaperrotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no proof of him meeting WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. While he was in Law & Order: SVU for 10 years, he only appeared in 17 of the 200+ episodes that aired in that stretch and his character was never a major one who impacted the show significantly. All of his other roles were small, guest or supporting ones and he has no awards/nominations or notable mentioning in any entertainment news articles to show any fan base or contributions to the entertainment industry. 173.2.255.184 (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 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, — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep (non-admin closure). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 04:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milorganite[edit]

Milorganite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article about processed sewage sludge is referenced to the extent that it can easliy be confirmed that the product exists. I see no evidence however that it is notable. References are from local papers and generic references about sewage sludge. This appears to be a local product, very similar to thousands of other similar products sold across the developed world. Therefore fails notability. Perhaps a merge into Sewage sludge might be the best course of action .  Velella  Velella Talk   13:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep No. It was the first and a precursor to the industry. Well referenced article. "History of Milorganite". Milorganite. Retrieved March 26, 2014. Since its inception in 1926 as the first pelletized fertilizer in the United States, Milorganite has sold over 9 billion pounds of recycled waste. "Milorganite Reaches 9 Billion Pounds with 85 Years of Recycling" (Press release). June 2, 2012. Retrieved March 26, 2014. In combining concerns for the environment and social justice, while successfully navigating the fluctuations and viscisitudes of the changing waste stream to deliver an important product through recycling, Milorganite has been at the forefront of the industry, even as it tries to reconcile the contradictions in its missions.Foote, Stephanie, Ed.; Mazzolini, Elizabeth; Schneider, Daniel (Chapter 7) (2012). "7, "Purification or Profit: Milwaukee and the Contradiction of Sludge". Histories of the Dustheap: Waste, Material Cultures, Social Justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 171–197. ISBN 0262017997. Retrieved March 26, 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) "The world’s first large scale wastewater treatment plant was constructed on Jones Island, near the shore of Lake Michigan." Stephens, Odin L.; Mengak, Michael T.; Osborn, David; Miller, Karl V. (March 2005). "Using Milorganite to temporarily repel white-tailed deer from food plots" (PDF). Wildlife Management Series. University of Georgia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources. Retrieved April 1, 2014. It had the largest capacity of any plant in the world when constructed.Freese, Simon W., P.E.; Sizemore, Deborah Lightfoot. A Century in the Works: 100 Years of Progress in Civil and Environmental Engineering; Freese and Nichols Consulting Engineers 1894-1994 (PDF). p. 44. Retrieved April 2, 2014.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) It was the first treatment facility to economically dispose of the recovered sludge by producing an organic fertilizer." In the early 1980s the plant needed extensive reworking, "this does not detract from its historic significance as a pioneering facility in the field of pollution control technology."Merritt, Raymond H. (1982). Historical Report Photographs, Written Historical and Descriptive Data (PDF). National Park Service. Retrieved April 1, 2014. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) The 1925 plant has been designated as a Historic Civil Engineering Landmark by the American Society of Civil Engineers."Environmental Draft Impact Statement: Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District; Water Pollution Abatement Program, No. E1S801072DB". Environmental Protection Agency. November 1980. p. V-100. Retrieved April 1, 2014. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I am surprised that this discussion is even happening. The first of its kind? Since 1924? If nothing else, let the wikipedia public decide. The page information reveals that " Milorganite has been viewed 1828 times in the last 30 days. " This is averaging (do your own math) something like 50 hits a day, even ignoring a recent spike probably caused by the absurd attempt to delete the article. People are looking for, and (if we keep it) finding the info on wikipedia. Is not that why we are all here? Carptrash (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced. What's the problem again? — goethean 20:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Absurd to be having this debate. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 07:24, 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 RELIST. Non-admin closure. Talk:DickSwim is not in the article namespace. Deletion relisted at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Talk:DickSwim.Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:DickSwim[edit]

Talk:DickSwim (edit | [[Talk:Talk:DickSwim|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Garbage page created by vandal. — Aldaron • T/C 12:48, 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. There seems to be some heavy socking going on here, or at least canvassing. I am consequently only taking into consideration the comments of established editors in the debate. SpinningSpark 15:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Family Therapy[edit]

Medical Family Therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article that has referenciness, but the referenciness evaporates on closer inspection. The sources for most fo the content are papers by the proponents of the term (primary sources). The sources which are provably independent, are not actually discussing the subject, but are provided to directly support claims made by the proponents (WP:OR). The author's name Googles as a "Medical Family Therapy Fellow", i.e. a WP:COI. Taken in totality, the article is an attempt to use Wikipedia to promulgate a novel discipline. We are not supposed to do that. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lsudano (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because it does not promote any individual company, person or organization. I am no longer in a Medical Family Therapy fellow role(I assume you are referencing a conflict of interest/secondary gains to me posting this article). Many students are curious about this growing field and the resources provided are reliable. Editing will continue to be made to the writing and with the growing number of training/certificate programs in the country (a table that was initially posted within the article but is now taken down), it is evident that this field continues to appeal to many professionals.--132.239.142.130 (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC) - lsudano[reply]

It is, however, promoting a novel concept. We are not supposed to blaze the trail in this way. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, I do understand your concern as the article lacked secondary sources to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines. As such, I have added secondary sources and will continue to add, e.g., the new 2014 text on Medical Family Therapy: Advanced Applications published by Springer and a 2012 article about the heart of Medical Family Therapy. In total, I added 7 secondary resources. Thank you for your constructive and directive feedback on how to make this article stronger and for it to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I look forward to building this important page. Should there be further edits needed, please let me know as I am looking to meet Wikipedia's requirements. --68.6.185.120 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if the page is meeting the requirements/guidelines of Wikipedia. I have added secondary resources to ensure that the page is not promoting a "novel concept." Also, I have looked at the following pages as a guide to editing the page because they have been on Wikipedia for awhile and there is no trace of discussion regarding deletion: health psychology and medical social work. Also, I would like to add the programs like health psychology. If I included programs in this format, would there be a violation? Please advise.--Lsudano (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree. This seems to be a novel technique that is promoted by the main editor of the article, who, in my opinion, is a single-purpose account. --Fjsalguero (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently found this page and recommend against deletion. I am currently attempting to organize knowledgeable people to add-to and diversify this page. I request that you allow until the end of April for us to accomplish our work. As this is my first time working on a Wikipedia page, I also request more specifics as to what will be required of us. Much of your commentary is hard to interpret outside of Wikipedia alcolytes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randall.reitz (talk • contribs) 17:18, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. A7 speedy delete. Note that rationale is not a valid reason for deletion. Cindy(talk) 10:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu mathi[edit]

Ramu mathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiographical Zince34' 09:35, 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 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Ashurst[edit]

Lee Ashurst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This has the feel of an article written by someone with a grudge against Dubai and feels the prosecution should not have taken place. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 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 Fabio Holanda. → Call me Hahc21 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian Top Team Canada[edit]

Brazilian Top Team Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a mirror of information already found in Fabio Holanda (already merged) and does not have the notability to stand on its own especially once you remove the Fabio specific information. Not sure Fabio meets notability requirements either but not nominating that article at this time. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note we will make the changes as we reflected the coach and team are part of the same history. Thank you for your insight and understanding. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woods999 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The page for BTT Canada is the school - Fabio Holanda is the Head Coach. It is normal to have parallels in history. (Woods999 (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)) Woods999 ... I am cleaning up the page as required by the Help Desk...Thank you[reply]
  • Redirect to Fabio Holanda Of this material is already in the Holanda article and the school itself does not appear to be notable.204.126.132.231 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fabio Holanda There is no significant independent coverage of the school itself and notability is not inherited from who owns the school or who trains there--unless it leads to coverage of the school and is not just a passing mention.Mdtemp (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect The sources for this article either are not independent or mention the school only in passing. I'm not convinced of Holanda's notability, but a redirect to his article seems better than outright deletion, at least for the time being. Papaursa (talk) 01:43, 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 Finland in the Eurovision Song Contest. j⚛e deckertalk 16:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Euroviisut[edit]

Euroviisut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced television program event. Besides being unreferenced, thus clearly failing WP:V, how is this passing Wikipedia:Notability (products)/WP:GNG? Wikipedia:Notability (TV episodes) is not a valid guideline, so as far as I can tell WP:PRODUCT applies here (through it is a pretty poorly written section). Still just defaulting to GNG, what makes this notable? As written, certainly no sources suggest GNG may hold here. No wiki article is referenced to the event website, so no RS there, neither. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 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 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tech[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neo-Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant dab. None of the entries has an article. (The second link is actually piped to another article.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the first link, Integrated Management Associates, which apparently is also known sometimes as Neo-Tech Publishing. (The font is "Neo Tech", without the dash.) ansh666 06:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think it's unreasonable to put Neo-Tech and Neo Tech on same dab - average user probably won't be sure which way it is written. As for the piping, easily sorted. Valid entries, meeting MOS:DABMENTION. Deleting or redirecting to one of the entries could only cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: all valid entries, and I've just added another. PamD 12:17, 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 per WP:SNOW as a personal essay and for being somewhat promotional enough to where I think it'd be speedyable as such. (WP:G11) Note that the same user made this and Art Marketing Online. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selling Art Online[edit]

Selling Art Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be original research reddogsix (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. The article was speedily deleted from Wikipedia by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) at 14:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lantronix[edit]

Lantronix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. The few Google News hits are press releases or incidental mentions. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: The article is lacking in references and all I am finding is routine announcements of products, appointments and dispute settlement. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 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.

Please note that this was recreated as a redirect immediately after deletion and this is now sitting at RFD. Spartaz Humbug! 13:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Bryce[edit]

Hunter Bryce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content beyond the minimal details from an obituary. PROD removed with the comment that the subject "Was notable outside of pornography"; but there is not a shred of evidence supporting this unexplained claim. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you were paying attention, the entire edit summary reads: "Was notable outside of pornography; added ref (and cat)"; to which I indeed added a reference. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 03:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. You're dead wrong. You didn't add any references; you added an additional citation to an existing reference. The content and category you added didn't deal with work "outside pornography"; it reported she was signed to/worked for Type 9 models, which is indisputably a porn talent agency.[5][6][7][8][9] If somebody's not paying attention, it wouldn't be me. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • A "porn talent agency" is what other people are calling the company, not what the company called itself; and anyway, since she appeared in porn and was also a model, well, that does qualify for inclusion in Category:Adult models according to the header there (btw, that adultfyi.com link doesn't look very reliable). And that extra citation wasn't added before because no one else ever challenged the information in the article that was already there. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 18:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO without award wins. Fails GNG without substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. The obituary articles are not enough to establish notability. The first ref comes from a routine death notice. The XBiz obit has depth, but it is insufficient by itself. My own search for sources yielded a brief obit in AVN. Still not substantial coverage. Finally, the claim of notability outside porn lacks evidence. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Gene93k. Delete until adequate referencing of notability outside adult film industry is cited. Flipandflopped (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inadequate sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 18:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with Gene93k's detailed analyis. Finnegas (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails the porn bio guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 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 The_Nut_Job#Sequel. Clear consensus; no need to drag this out. (non-admin closure)  Gong show 20:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Nut Job 2[edit]

The Nut Job 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NFF. I'm not finding any sources announcing that actual production has begun, merely announcements that they were planning to make a movie. Article is entirely unsourced. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:08, 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 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Leon[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Faith Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No nonscene awards, only one nonscene nomination. No independent reliable sourcing. Little reliably sourced biographical content -- aside from disputed birthdate/place claims, no biographical content whatsoever. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO with just one non-scene-related nomination. Fails GNG. No substantial RS coverage cited in the article. None found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 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 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Saint[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ellen Saint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content -- aside from birthdate/place claims, no biographical content whatsoever. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 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 redirect to Issaquah School District. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyhillselementary[edit]

Sunnyhillselementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school. Only information is what year it was constructed, info on the amount and grades of students, plus its location. Half of the article is information on the length of the school day, and there are no citations. 123chess456 (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:08, 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 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Influx Magazine[edit]

Influx Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable magazine. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Appears to not meet WP:GNG. Source searches in news and book sources are not providing much coverage in reliable sources (rs), let alone significant coverage. Only finding passing mentions in rs. NorthAmerica1000 03:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. Looks like a reliable source itself, but I don't think it's notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources, no notability... --Randykitty (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. EthicallyYours! 13:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence that it meets WP:GNG.160.36.8.237 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable; lack of sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:19, 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 delete. j⚛e deckertalk 16:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InCorp Services, Inc.[edit]

InCorp Services, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Art Marketing Online[edit]

Art Marketing Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising for a single site. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, missed that.. changing to CSD. Good pickup!--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:30, 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 04:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garakupi(market)[edit]

Garakupi(market) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is a market in a village. No notability. No reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_March_26&oldid=1142628223"