Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 May	17 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naomi Duguid[edit]

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

not notable author I+delete+things+alot (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She and her husband seem to have adequate coverage in independent reliable sources to meet WP:BIO, not an easy thing for cookbook writers. The sources seem to have been barely taped by the article. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating: checks and alternatives: B2 is there for a reason --Bejnar (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the signifcance of her husband? I+delete+things+alot (talk) 05:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her now ex-husband was lead co-author on her first six books. they have shared every aspect of a book’s creation, from writing and recipe collecting to photography. For years, this unorthodox MO confounded their editors at such publications as Bon Appétit and Food & Wine. Their unified voice means that the reader never knows whether an anecdote comes from Alford or Duguid. But somehow it works. A marriage of true minds admits no impediment. Chapman, Sasha (2005). "Spice World:Canada's most acclaimed cookbook writers on their almost accidental success". Toronto Life (November). Archived from the original on 17 June 2007. --Bejnar (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is fairly notable and merging to her X who was her cowriting partner on many books doesn't seem appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her work is notable. The James Beard Award helps to show this. Andrew Dalby 19:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on having sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG. The James Beard award is also significant. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolux Design Lab[edit]

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

It is no sources and just promotion material. I+delete+things+alot (talk) 00:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very promotional. Not worthy of a selective merger to Electrolux article. Harsh (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I note the article was improved between the nomination and now, so we now have more of a proper article with clear assertions to notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ganymede Club[edit]

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

not notable book I+delete+things+alot (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional delete: Unless significant coverage is found in WP:RS to show notability, this needs to go. I trust the closing admin to look at this condition and interpret my !vote correctly. Fiddle Faddle 15:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article now has adequate substantiation of its notability. While ultimately, it might be better to have an article on the Cold as Ice (trilogy), rather than separate articles; right now, although this is the second in the trilogy, it is the most developed article on the three books. --Bejnar (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close. The ISFDB page for this novel lists enough reviews to establish the coverage that demonstrates notability. The nom has apparently ignored the requirements of WP:BEFORE and displays a curious interest in deleting the works of a rather notable author. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurs' Organization[edit]

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

no evidence for notability . beyond 1 human interest story in LATimes & promotional content including list of founding members, most of them non-notable DGG ( talk ) 15:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 22:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are excretable. But notability is not a problem; see some example sources for notability I added to the Talk page. Inc. Magazine says "perhaps the best known of several groups that emerged during the 1990s to offer educational opportunities and other kinds of support to young business owners" in their encyclopedia entry (which is apparently sourced from a business copywriting company but check and see what you think). Time magazine lists the organization as a columnist. Reports of chapters in Japan (since 1995) and Russia (since 2003) (when the organization was still called "Young Entrepreneurs' Organization") are easy to find. With a 1987 founding, there's little news to report, so I'd expect that sources are going to either be old (so also check offline) or about local chapters/events. But again, notability is not the problem. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- none of those seem to be significant coverage about the organization. mere existence, even of lots of local chapters , does not establish notability. Being "the most notable" of my dogs does not make Sparky actually notable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you look at the Inc. Magazine piece? http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/young-entrepreneurs-organization-YEO.html A full page about the organization, what does that lack as significant coverage about the organization? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 14:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, i did see that. But I am not really sure what inc.com/encyclopedia is. if this is an encyclopedia about business, the fact at only 600 odd entries [1] , one of them is YEO (an organization that hasnt existed under that name in almost 10 years and has no significant coverage elsewhere), makes me question what exactly inc.com/encyclopedia really is, how it was created, for what purpose ,and strikes me as either a paid entry or COI, but not a particularly reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I mentioned on the talk page (but I see not here) that the source is called Reference for Business. I wasn't sure at first about reliability either. But I did a bit more digging just now and am now convinced that this is a 2002 version of an encyclopedia published by Gale. (see the Talk page if you want more details on why I think this.) I don't know what Advameg's connection is (e.g. whether they are a licensed provider, pushing content onto the web for publishers, or a suspect company -- they have other reference-like websites and an F BBB rating). So better to go straight to the (reliable) Gale source as this is in the 4th edition of the encyclopedia. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jodi.a.schneider. The Inc. Magazine article is huge in establishing notability on its own. --do ncr am 02:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contained in the 4th edition of the Encyclopedia of Small Business, published by Gale in 2010/2011.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article there would indeed justify having one here. but based on the table of contents it doesn't seem to have an article of its own; perhaps you means it's mentioned in some other article? That's not sufficient evidence. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, not sure if you spotted "Young Entrepreneurs' Organization (YEO)" in that table of contents. That is the old name of the Entrepreneur's Organization. (See e.g. the Inc. magazine encyclopedia, which I believe to be drawn from an older version of the same Gale encyclopedia; more on my reasoning is here, or we could just try to get ahold of a print/licensed electronic copy of the Gale article to verify.) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per per Jodi.a.schneider. Multiple sources establish notability ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ 話 ♪} ߷ _{♀ 投稿 ♀} 03:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Sheehy (actor)[edit]

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

Notability concerns - not least the fact I see no difference between this and Niall Sheehy (entertainer) which was deleted at AfD. Laun chba ller 19:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if i recall, this looks just like the one that was deleted and so probably qualifies for a speedy under Db-repost -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I have already tried that and Malik Shabazz disagrees.--Laun chba ller 00:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

oops my bad, i had not looked at the history to see that //this// was the version that I had edited - no wonder why I thought it looked familiar - although i thought i had been editing it during a deletion discussion that ended in delete. that must have been some other actor. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 22:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find the references do much beyond proving that this person exists. As many other people have remarked over the years: you are not notable just for doing your job. The fact that this guy is an actor is not enough: he's not a notable actor. He has done nothing to make him stand out from any of the other aspiring thespians currently appearing as understudies and in minor roles in the West End. It'll be easy enough to re-create this article if he becomes a star, but right now he's just a working actor. Not notable. RomanSpa (talk) 06:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per Existing Wikipedia Policy: WP:ENTERTAINER. RomanSpa (talk) 11:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Notability not established. — O'Dea (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable; per above. Harsh (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Rehman[edit]

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

Notability of subject not clear--is of local importance at best. WP:BASIC, WP:NPOL Prof. Mc (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether the article should be titled and deal with the shooting incident primarily or the individual is not not clear to me, the murder of this human rights activist and lawyer has been covered very substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:42, 10 May 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, czar ♔ 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sourcesm subject has been covered indepth by media.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's very difficult to find coverage of him outside of either his murder or the death threats received prior to the murder, because that's what's flooding the media now, but there is some pre-murder coverage of him. This is a 10-page article, two of which detail Rehman's work on a case; it alone would probably not be enough to support notability, but it, the death threats, the murder, and the subsequent nationwide strike by attorneys in response to his killing, combine to confer notability, I think. TJRC (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy & Claire Weiss aka Day19[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep after looking at the sources it does seem that they have adequate coverage in independent reliable sources. The article needs to have non-encyclopeadic material removed, but that is housekeeping not deletion. The rest of the raw URL's in the citations need to be filled out, I did four of them. The awards are not great, but given the field seem adequate. The number of gallery shows is inadequate for pre-Internet artists, but now-a-days exposure is more likely on the web than to the elite. --Bejnar (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Promo bollox. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - non-notable subjects, promotional in nature. Quis separabit? 19:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - written in a promotional tone, and non-notable: I could not find any reliable sources in several attempts.--Theredproject (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Zhipeng[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer. Does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:KICK. Astudent0 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His kickboxing record doesn't show anything that meets WP:KICK. Papaursa (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muwema & Mugerwa[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 20:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Article is already listed for AfD on 12 may 2014 but this was removed by an IP. No need for a second nomination. The Banner talk 20:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blarney Brass and Reed Band[edit]

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

Non-notable band, article contains puffery and promo. Fails WP:MUSIC (South of Ireland Band Championships is not a "a major music competition", a non-notable championship in itself. Murry1975 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At core, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG (doesn't demonstrate "significant coverage"), or WP:MUSIC (nothing RE notable awards, charting, notable members, etc). Respectfully I'm sure the band is very important to its members - but doesn't appear to meet criteria for inclusion on project. Not yet at any rate. Better dealt with/merged into "clubs and community" type section of the article on the town. Guliolopez (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 21:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apart from [2] I could find no significant coverage. Fails per previous comments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deb, (A7: No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bradley Downey) --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Downey[edit]

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

Not your run of the mill bio. Tagged for speedy, but looks well written enough to merit discussion and confirm the deletion. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 18:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article creator is the person being mentioned in the article, no other edits have being made. The person mentioned is not notable as is only a run of the mill employer at a company and does not merit an article on Wikipedia Seasider91 (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comics and Gaming Magazine[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources covering this publication. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability. Guy (Help!) 17:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 19:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It didn't pass a search engine test (a high school magazine seemingly had more coverage) or have meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources search (only hit was a press release, no hits on variants of name). Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar ♔ 22:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see it in my local shops such as Chapters and indigo, it seems to be a Canadian publication. They do have some good writers. It also seems to be for sale in the same digital store edge is http://www.pocketmags.com/viewmagazine.aspx?catid=1039&category=Tech+%26+Gaming&subcatid=241&subcategory=Gaming&title=CGMagazine&titleid=404&issueid=76330

Hope this help your discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksky47 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Woodroar and Czar pretty much sum up all of my concerns. Where are the third party sources that discuss it in detail? Sergecross73 msg me 03:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability (lack of significant coverage in reliable sources). Also appears to be attempting to promote itself on-wiki, which isn't strictly cause for deletion but seldom a sign of a good-faith article attempt. What little notability is claimed is vague and related to the supposedly "thriving" website, yet an Alexa search reveals the site's Alexa ranking to be a very poor 5,136,142(!!!)--for comparison's sake sites like Gamespot and Gamefaqs are both in the top 1000. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional/original research. Can't verify notability. Harsh (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps even salt due to lack coverage from reliable third-party sources. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - That's gonna sound a lot like nothing, but it is a commercially succesful Canadian magazine, and despite the lack of sources (I found this: [3], [4], [5], [6]), I am having a hard time finding a way to support deletion. Also: rename Comics Gaming Magazine per how it's officially being called. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Out of those links, links #1 and #3 only give brief coverage, and link#4 I'm not sure is reliable. link#2 would be the best ref to use, but one reliable third-party ref providing significant coverage isn't enough. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #2 looks questionable to me. Their About This Site page describes them as "a portal site connecting the leading vendors & consultants with the thousands of publishing professionals and entrepreneurs" along with details on how to get your new publication listed. I could be wrong, but it appears to be little more than Yahoo! Directory for magazines. Woodroar (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maurice Gilvarry[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable victim of the Norther Ireland troubles. No difference to the other 3,500 victims. I listed for speedy deletion and it was removed with an editor claiming it was a notable case without giving any reason. Consensus is against listing every victim of a conflict. There is nothing notable about either the person listed or the circumstances of their death. Dmol (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To repeat what has been said in many similar cases: whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Mr Gilvarry's death was a tragedy he himself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another unfortunate death that served no purpose. As such doesnt appear to meet WP:NOTE Amortias (T)(C) 14:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Moreland (IRA murder victim)[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable victim of the Norther Ireland troubles. No difference to the other 3,500 victims. I listed for speedy deletion and it was removed with an editor claiming it was a notable case without giving any reason. Consensus is against listing every victim of a conflict. There is nothing notable about either the person listed or the circumstances of their death. Dmol (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being non-notable. No lasting impact from the death of another person, no matter how tragic it was. Also this has been created by the same user who has created lots and lots and lots of similar non-notable articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does an editor's list of contributions have to do with this AfD? You're making it sound personal... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing they've created lots of these non-notable articles. Read my post again and also read WP:AGF. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm the person who removed the speedy tag. Dmol needs to remember that there's a big difference between "not notable" and "qualifies for A7 speedy deletion". The latter only requires importance, i.e. we need to be able to say "this isn't a completely run-of-the-mill person". Since she was apparently the last victim before the first ceasefire, there's a chance that she'd get more coverage than the typical victim, so it would be a disservice to interested editors to delete it without giving them a chance to dig for resources. I doubt that sufficient sources exist, so I tend to agree that deletion's the right course, but the situation's ambiguous, and we need to follow the speedy deletion policy: Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been a lot of debates on similar subjects over the past few days. Where not "speedily deleted", the debates that have been closed so far support the consensus that we should not have articles on the deaths of otherwise non-notable people as a result of terrorism. I'll therefore repeat what I have already said in other debates: whilst any death is tragic, and deaths due to natural disasters and conflicts, declared or undeclared, seem particularly so, it is our policy that the subjects of articles must be notable. For this reason we do not have articles on every soldier killed in a war, every victim of a pandemic, or everyone who died in a horrific disaster, though we will probably have articles on the war, pandemic or disaster in question. We do have articles about people who have died in such circumstances, but only where those people were already notable for other reasons. Although Ms Moreland's death was a tragedy she herself was not notable. It is not our place to provide personal memorials. RomanSpa (talk) 06:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per previous posts this one although unfrotunate doesnt meet the criteria for WP:NOTE unfortunatly this isnt a place for memorials Amortias (T)(C) 14:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Boyd[edit]

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

Most of this article appears to be pure fiction. This person was a college tight end at Washington State, and appears to have spent a few games in 2008 on the roster of the Washington Redskins, but he was apparently never active nor played in a game. As such, I question whether this person meets Wikipedia's Notability standards. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the information which was either unsupported or pure fiction in accordance with WP:BLP. — DeeJayK (talk) 16:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never played in the NFL. No other indication of notability. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing notability as a college football player. Would need more data to change my mind.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be non-notable. buff bills 7701 22:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Globalcom[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Sourced mainly to SEC filings, and without sufficient independent secondary sourcing so as to establish notability, Article has been heavily edited over the years by at least seven SPAs and an account associated with the company itself, and most recently has employed a paid editing service, but all of these efforts have failed, as the sourcing just isn't there. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ordinarily merger would be a solution, and at first I was inclined to agree, but there seems to be very little worth preserving here. Coretheapple (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Seriously, Coretheapple... how about you drop the revenge editing based on wiki-stalking, grow up, and help us So fix it? - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)— 208.116.141.100 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Linking to Bing search results showing non-notable websites and press releases is unhelpful. The company, to be notable, requires multiple secondary sources. As the editing history of this AfD will indicate, somebody associated with the company was so insecure about the fate of the article that it employed ~~sockpuppets to disrupt this discussion, and now unleashed~~ an SPA IP editor engaging in personal attacks and vandalism. You're employed or paid by the company, editing from one of the company's computers "On advice from MyWikiBiz, this article has been sufficiently trimmed of the excessive marketing language. Disclosure: I am working from a Reliance Globalcom network". This was a red flag for proper scrutiny and not "wikistalking." And yes, the fact that the company, represented by you, can't bring the article up to Wikipedia standards is a good indicator that it just can't be done by volunteeers. I see from the edit history that the article was heavily edited by a succession of SPAs over the years[7] [8][9][10][11][12], as well as User:Reliance.globalcom, so you're not the first, and yet the article still fails to satisfy WP:CORP. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please listen for minute, Coretheapple -- you might learn something. The link I gave to Bing News archives contains the following sources on the first page:
Reliance Globalcom lures Pacnet's Bill Barney to CEO post, authored by Sean Buckley for Fierce Telecom, which is frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Reliance Globalcom Unveils New Name, Cloud Business Plan, authored by Michelle Maisto for EWeek, which is very frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

Reliance Globalcom upgrades trans-atlantic submarine network with Ciena’s GeoMesh, found in CIOL, which is frequently used on Wikipedia as a reliable source.

You spotted a couple of press releases, and you damned the entire library of sources. This shows that you are not fit for evaluating sources, due to your harassment and wiki-stalking of my edits today on Wikipedia. What is wrong with you? (Also, see below that your obsession with "sockpuppets" is also out of place here.) - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 16:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not notable and even if they were, what you cite fail WP:AUD. Yes, I realize they're fine for you, because you work for the company. AfD debates are internal processes for Wikipedia editors, and are not a place for article subjects, their employees and agents to weigh in, even if they weren't being abusive as you are. I realize this article matters a lot to the company, because the company created an account to edit the article, and then, both before and after that account was blocked, dispatched a half-dozen people to create accounts to work on this article. Obviously Wikipedia is a high p.r. priority for the company. I get that. It's not uncommon, and I really sympathize with all the effort, but the sources just aren't there. They've obviously invested a fair sum of money in getting this article up and running, so the passion is evident. Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would you describe the Wall Street Journal as passing WP:AUD? If so, then there is this. How about Financial Times? If so, then there is this. Do you see how silly you're beginning to look, Coretheapple? The company has laid telecommunications cables across entire oceans! Do you realize what a monumental human undertaking that is? You sit there with your arms crossed, saying, "Nope, that's not notable, because I've never heard of this company, and I'm in a butthurt rage about the editor this morning being smarter than me, so I CAN HAZ TO RETALEEATEZ!" Grow up, Coretheapple. - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, you've been around Wikipedia a very long time, certainly long enough to be familiar with WP:NPA, and also to know that resorting to juvenile personal attacks is a sign of desperation. Those articles are so insignificant that they aren't even used as sources for this article. What's required is depth of coverage, not tied-together press releases and copying from SEC filings self-published by the company. I know you love this company dearly, and the company loves itself so dearly that it has deployed considerable resources to putting this article in Wikipedia and keeping it there. But it still has to meet notability standards. Let's see what independent editors, those with no stake in the company, have to say. That's why we're having this discussion. Remember WP:DONTPANIC? Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get one thing straight. This whole nomination is a personal attack, Coretheapple. You know that. The only reason you came to the article about Reliance Globalcom today was because I said something that you didn't like, on Jimmy Wales' talk page. I cannot think of a more petty and juvenile thing you could do -- especially when you were given actual evidence that a PR firm had completely doctored David B. Rivkin, but you sat back and mocked that notification. That article, you didn't touch. No, you came to the Reliance Globalcom article to do your trolling, because you thought that would upset me. Well, guess what, Coretheapple? You're going to lose this battle, either way. You know why? Because if the article stays, then I "win", because you wanted it deleted. If the article gets deleted, guess what? I have several very good friends who work for one of the United States' biggest competitors of Reliance Globalcom. If the article gets deleted, I'll forward them this discussion, letting them know that I was 208.116.141.100 today, and then they are going to be so pleased, we're going to laugh all night as they buy me a steak dinner and a bottle of the best Shiraz in the house. Sorry if that blows your mind, Coretheapple, but it's 100% true. It would appear that you just wasted a bunch of time today, ~~trolling~~ toiling away hopelessly on your precious, inviolable Wikipedia. - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~You're not affiliated with the company? Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)~~ [reply]
Wow, you are really perhaps one of the densest minds I've ever encountered on Wikipedia. If you haven't "gotten" it by now, we'll try one more time -- I have no affiliation with Reliance Globalcom, other than I happen to be logging into one of their WiFi hotspots today. That will be all I have to say on this matter. Good luck with the AfD! (Remember, either outcome, I win!) - 208.116.141.100 (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Aw shucks, I am stupid! Yes that is surely the most credible explanation for your passion on this subject. You just happened to be using one of their computers on behalf of MyWikiBiz, a paid-editing mill. By the way, just so you know, you've got to keep your IPs straight. You made no comments on Jimbo's talk page about Rivkin, you just vandalized that discussion on a couple of occasions. No, the comments about Rivkin were made when you logged on under IP 2001:558:1400:10:412B:35D4:A950:1B39. Coretheapple (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 208.116, but I thought I'd point out in his defense that you seem to be wrong again, Coretheapple. User:208.116 did in fact contribute to the Rivkin discussion on Jimmy Wales' talk page. If you're this atrocious with reviewing simple diffs as evidence, you maybe shouldn't be guiding Wikipedia's content decisions, either. - 2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No Mr. 2001/208 etc., that diff shows only that you vandalized another editor's post, just as I said. Please stop claiming that you're two separate people, when you're clearly the same person. Coretheapple (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you said on NawlinWiki's talk page[13] that "MyWikiBiz= has advised me on my edits to Reliance Globalcom." You really need to get your story straight. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
How is being advised by MyWikiBiz some sort of "lock" or guarantee that 208.116 is affiliated with Reliance Globalcom? If anything, it is appearing more and more that 208.116's passion is either winding you up, Coretheapple, or seeing that the Reliance Globalcom page gets deleted (a "joe job"), or quite probably both. Whatever the case, you've come off as pretty much stark-raving mad; certainly no asset to the Wikipedia project. - 2001:558:1408:0:0:5EFE:ABB:5ACF (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]
You clearly are the same person as Mr. 208, and aside from pretending to be two different people, you are a sock of a banned editor. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014. Coretheapple (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Striking out comment from ban-evading sock of User:MyWikiBiz. Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm staying neutral on whether this article should be deleted, but can we stop talking about the sockpuppets already? They were created by banned User:Mr Wiki Pro, who is not related to either Coretheapple or 208.116.141.100. He has been disrupting a different random AFD every day for the past few days with a new set of sockpuppets. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm satisfied as to that, so I struck out the comments referring to the socks, but the rest stand. Coretheapple (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Reliance Communications. Not finding in-depth secondary source coverage. Google and HighBeam searches get tons of trade press articles that appear to be regurgitated press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Coretheapple makes great arguments. - 50.144.0.4 (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per Gene. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable by itself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this while catching up on all the latest kerfuffle about Greg (whom I know from Wikipediocracy, where I'm a staff member) and MyWikiBiz. Maybe I am missing something here, but I am not finding a lack of sources: Reuters, Economic Times of the Times of India, The Hindu, Indian Express, etc. These are hundreds of articles, including in India's biggest national dailies, and articles like this or this or this don't look like press releases to me. To be sure, I don't see many good sources cited in the article, but article quality is different from notability. And why is this in UK-related deletion discussions, if it's an Indian company? Andreas JN 466 16:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the company is the principal author of this article, it can't be ignorant of the sources you cite. These are regurgitated press releases, no depth of coverage. Coretheapple (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're in Hoover's [14][15], which is one of the criteria given in WP:CORP (WP:LISTED). But yes, looking more closely, I can't find decent coverage either. :/ --Andreas JN 466 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's because they're a subsidiary of a public company. Interesting that that's part of the notability criteria, as Hoover's lists pretty much everybody. Coretheapple (talk) 10:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent company. --Andreas JN 466 02:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Favonian (talk) 14:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nolyn Casino[edit]

Nolyn Casino (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)

Unremarkable hip-hop artist. A search fails to find reliable sources for either him or his label Fully Loaded Regime. The article was previously speedily deleted twice, but my latest tag was declined by cymru.lass; however, feel free to re-tag if necessary. Should the article be deleted, the article should probably be salted since it's been created and deleted a few times already. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and it looks like a hoax, at the least multiple of the statements are just incorrect to make it seem like this person is more notable then they really are. STATic message me! 13:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11. -- Atama頭 19:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa ett[edit]

Sofa ett (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)

Art installation with no evidence of any coverage by secondary sources. Article was created by the maker of the artwork, so there are issues with conflict of interest an original research; however, I don't think the article rises to the level of spam. —C.Fred (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as not notable. Dloh cierekim 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any independent sources to establish WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:44, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - as an advertisement for a made-up (and very ineptly, I might add) word and the object it refers to, by the person who created it. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

del spam, if speedy delete is denied for some reason. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, made up by creator & no claim of significance. Just some random art student.TheLongTone (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is consensus that this might be a viable topic, as it stands right now the article is an essay with minimal referencing to a single source. No prejudice to recreation, assuming it takes an appropriate form (e.g., Medieval cuisine). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval censorship[edit]

Medieval censorship (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's an essay. See also this discussion. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An interesting and valid topic, but badly written. Needs cleanup for spelling and bad caps etc. The tags at the top list the problems, but none is serious enough to warrant deletion. --Dmol (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy Too many problems to keep in article space but a valid topic worthy of coverage. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think userfy is an option, since the original author is under the misapprehension that Voltaire is a medieval writer, which does not auger well for their ability to improve the article. Question is whether the article contains anything worth salvaging.TheLongTone (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it looks like an almost completely unsourced essay, and a rather poor quality one at that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call that a very charitable assessment!TheLongTone (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the topic is certainly notable - whole books have been written on the history of censorship. The question is whether it's such a mess that it needs a fresh start, or if somebody will rescue this essay. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a topic worthy of an article, but this article isn't it. Usually I'd say wait to give the author time (it's only existed for 5 days), but this essay is too badly written and unspecific to be salvageable. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to recreation. 4th-form gibberish. I especially enjoyed (on English bibles) "The Church of England became enraged by this translation of a traditionally Latin text to English...". Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richiesoft[edit]

Richiesoft (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 deleted twice previously including WP:G7 and continues to read like advertising ("we", "our"'). Author appears to have WP:COI (same name as founder/director), and has been warned about COI. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 11:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Adspam article with bad grammar. None of the references appear to be both reliable and covering the subject in detail. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for keeping this article all revolve around WP:ITSUSEFUL, which as we all know is not a valid rationale. On the other hand no one successfully contested the apparent lack of notability, which is the reason the article was brought to AFD to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patriotic Socialist Party[edit]

Patriotic Socialist Party (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)

Tiny, insignificant party that fails WP:GNG as it is not widely covered in multiple reliable sources and is simply running three candidates in local elections during which several thousand seats are up for grabs. Apart from a very brief descriptive article in a local paper mentioning that a candidate is running the sources are all from the party's own website or just confirmation of their existence rather than actual coverage. Also, whilst not a criterion for deletion per se, the article has serious POV issues as it presents what the party claims about themselves as fact with the creator attempting to remove any reference to claims that they are far right. At best this is WP:TOOSOON at worst soapboxing. Keresaspa (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough, standing only 3 candidates in local authority elections. Next to no third party coverage. No evidence of significance beyond self-generated Internet noise. Not important enough for politics projects here on Wiki. doktorb _words^deeds 21:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"it presents what the party claims about themselves as fact". Not true. "the creator attempting to remove any reference to claims that they are far right". No I didn't. I removed one statement, because it was unsubstantiated and which Keresaspa admits was unsubstantiated (I still don't know where he got his information about 'loose' associations and 'active' associations. If he's willing to provide citations for the information, perhaps he should add it to this article or to others. That said, I'm also confused as to why he's adding info to an article that he thinks should be deleted). As for being a candidate for deletion, there are many Wikipedia articles out there on political parties that have no independent sources or just one. This article has several. "Not notable enough, standing only 3 candidates in local authority elections." They're standing in the upcoming Newark by-election too. The article makes that quite clear! Renren8123 (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete There are a number of political parties with wiki articles that aren't standing, or don't often stand very many candidates, yet we still include them on Wikipedia. Furthermore, what needs to be taken note of is that the Patriotic Socialist Party is relatively new and therefore needs some concession put forward on those grounds. However, despite the fact that it is relatively youthful it is still standing a candidate for the by-election in Newark, which is going to feature prominently. Therefore, the article should not be deleted. Kezzer16 (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Renren8123 "it presents what the party claims about themselves as fact". Not true. Quite true when the only source for a number of claims is the party's own website. To quote the second sentece of WP:N - Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

because it was unsubstantiated and which Keresaspa admits was unsubstantiated - No it wasn't and no I didn't.

I still don't know where he got his information about 'loose' associations and 'active' associations - Some of the groups were named in the source as having members speaking at the rally, others as simply sending supporters. If you speak at a rally you're invited but anybody can just turn up so I felt the distinction was worth noting and "active" and "loose" were my own words. I didn't restore them in an attempt to build consensus.

That said, I'm also confused as to why he's adding info to an article that he thinks should be deleted See WP:BEFORE - it's what you're SUPPOSE to do.

As for being a candidate for deletion, there are many Wikipedia articles out there on political parties that have no independent sources or just one. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS

This article has several. The party's own website is not independent and the passing mentions on the Electoral Commission's site and those of the relevant councils prove their existence not their notability (the basis for having an article). Only the Huddersfield Daily Examiner link is an independent source with more than a passing mention and even then it is simply stating that they exist and are standing in a local election.

They're standing in the upcoming Newark by-election too. There are plenty of parties to have contested by-elections that don't have articles. WP:GNG is the cornerstone of Wikipedia and without proper WP:V articles are deleted.

And furthermore please don't come on my talk page shouting the odds. The debate is on this page as that's how it works on Wikipedia. You stated on my page You seem undecided whether you want the article deleted or whether you want more information added. If you can provide multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the party as Wikipedia demands then I will have no desire whatsoever to see the article deleted. Until that time then I'll support deletion. You also stated on my talk page The article has already been nominated for deletion by somebody else. That nomination has been rejected. Not the case - the article was tagged for speedy deletion and didn't fulfil the criteria for that. This sort of deletion debate is an entirely separate process. I'll hold my hands up to one thing though - it wasn't you who removed previous edits about the party being right wing. Keresaspa (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Keresaspa. "Quite true when the only source for a number of claims is the party's own website." That's the same as with many Wikipedia articles, but, as is proper, with anything potentially contentious, I've used words like 'claims'. "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." Well, then, it's a good thing that there are reliable, third-party sources cited in the article.

"No it wasn't and no I didn't." I said, "Cited source gives no indication of 'active' versus 'loose' associations". You replied, "OK remove "loosely" and "closely"". What is that 'OK', if not an admission that it isn't substantiated?

"Some of the groups were named in the source as having members speaking at the rally, others as simply sending supporters. If you speak at a rally you're invited but anybody can just turn up so..." That doesn't give any sound grounding to the claim about 'loose' and 'close' associations. That would be original research on your part.

"See WP:BEFORE - it's what you're SUPPOSE to do." It says to search for additional sources. But, if you're actually adding sources to the article, you're really defeating your own claim that the article should be deleted.

"WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS". Indeed, and what does it say? "These comparisons may or may not be valid".

"And furthermore please don't come on my talk page shouting the odds." When was I shouting, literally or metaphorically? The only person who has used any language that could be deemed insulting is you. Renren8123 (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To be useful, Wikipedia must provide content that people want to read. People reading about the Newark By-Election will want to know about the parties standing. This is not a big or old party so there's not much we can say about it yet. That may change and hopefully we'll include more third party references. Until then, it's better that voters get their information here (where we try to be impartial) than at the PSP website or on radical left- or right-wing discussion boards. All other parties contesting Newark have their own articles, including the Bus Pass Elvis Party. (Note that 'other stuff exists' is an essay, not policy, and is anyway quite nuanced.) --Wavehunter (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Usefulness is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia and third party reliable sources are not an optional extra. The Bus Pass Elvis Party article is well sourced to the aforementioned third party reliable sources and so is no comparison. If you wish to talk about by-elections then what about the Independent Socialist Party in the South Shields by-election, 2013, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet in the Eastleigh by-election, 2013 or Nine Eleven was an Inside Job and the Young People's Party in the Croydon North by-election, 2012 to name some recent examples. It still comes down to verifiability through third party, reliable sources and the general notability guidelines that underpin Wikipedia, not an arbitrary judgement call on whether or not an article is useful. Keresaspa (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is an article on a current political party and is sourced. However few their candidates, they still exist. That said, feel free to edit it if you believe the article is biased towards the party --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nearly all of the references in the article are to the group's own publications. The few that are not merely confirm that a group with this name exists; there is no third-party coverage of the nature of this group, nor any evidence of its notability. The mere fact of registration with the Electoral Commission is not evidence of notability; there are 524 such registered groups, most of them as insignificant as this one. Unless reliable third-party sources can be adduced as to the significance of this group, it fails the notability test. RolandR (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yet another person who seeks to edit the article, while at the same time claiming that it needs to be deleted! Renren8123 (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Proposing it for deletion while stating that if reliable sources can be found they would be happy for it to stay is quite a reasonable comment. If the article can be improved then it stands to reason editors will want to keep it.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability so unless it can be found it makes sense to remove, if references become available so that it gains notability it can be recreated at that point Amortias (T)(C) 15:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor automatically keeping all articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size and ideology. As this is a registered party and it is running at least one candidate, this meets my own threshold, which I encourage others to support. This is the sort of material which should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. If you wish to read this as a defense rationale based on the pillar and policy of WP:Ignore All Rules (use common sense), go ahead. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the party has no proven notability. Wikipedia is not a platform for which to run a local election campaign; this page should be removed until there is actual encyclopaedic value in having it. — Zcbeaton (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tie Yinghua[edit]

Tie Yinghua (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 kickboxer. Does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the sources to meet WP:GNG and the resume to meet WP:KICK. Astudent0 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Berkus[edit]

Dave Berkus (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 just below the level of officially acceptable notability on Wikipedia, and as a favor to the creating editor I'm putting it here so it can die a slow death rather than axing it on afd grounds like I should in order to demonstrate the futility of recreating an article when the subject is non notable. That, and next time it gets recreated (if there is a next time) I'd like to 86 the sucker on 'recreation of an article that went through an afd' so I can link back here and not have to struggle with csd criteria. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN TomStar81 (Talk) 08:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets the acceptable notability requirements on wikipedia as it has cited numerous sources that each support the biography's narrative that Mr. Berkus has in fact created noteworthy innovations in the hotel hospitality industry, the software industry, and additionally now has more categories added. I am new to wikipedia editing and have no conflicting interests in authoring this article, following Wiki's guidelines on that point as well. I respectfully request other editors and administrators help me to keep this article going. --Brady Blair (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Brady Blair (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he makes the cut as notable. He has gotten some significant recognition in his field, and he has gotten coverage from independent reliable sources (I just added this one to the article). --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I know this is not policy-based, but he's well-known enough by laypersons as to be notable. @MelanieN added a reliable source, a well-known newspaper. Additional sourcing can be added outside of the AfD process. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please file a separate AfD for ADO Group. → Call me Hahc21 04:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adopen[edit]

Adopen (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)

We have two pages here - Adopen and ADO Group - which appear to be twins seperated at birth. Both are overly bloated ads, both are poorly written, and now both are at afd due to the latter being csd'd. I'm asking the community two things: 1) should the articles be axed for unambigious advertising, and if not 2) which one gets merged and redirected. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both IMO, they should both get the axe, but thats me. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Admins, I've never handled a double nomination before, so I left Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADO Group blank, if this was in error, please fix it. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:50, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adopen. Ado Group needs to be discussed separately. It may or may not be notable, but there is more reason to ekep it as the parent company. Abdelsalam Al Hassani

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and salted. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daana software developers[edit]

Daana software developers (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)

BustOut (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 08

38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Note - Administratively deleted on copyvio grounds for being a copy/paste from the company's facebook site. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailpin[edit]

Mailpin (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 does not meet notability guidelines, and article appears as being slightly promotional. Subject appears very limitedly in sources, the best I could find being this Design Instruct article; not much beyond that. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web application that fails notability. No independent reliable sources found. Has not set the Twittersphere alight (43 followers). Philg88 ^♦talk 06:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some better (independent) references can be found; the existing references are inadequate. Lest this come back to bite us in the bum, I'd like to note that we can easily re-create this page later, if this clever idea takes off and more references can be found. RomanSpa (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable enough. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not meeting notability. Thinking over what I've read, I don't see an assertion of significance and to me it reads as more than "slightly" promotional. We must remember that we claim to be an encyclopedia, and not a collection of wonderful ideas or a listing of useful services. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability concerns, as well as very spammy... and as RomanSpa stated, we can always recreate at a later date (when the website is more than a month old, and proves to not be a flop)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Newspaper[edit]

Smart Newspaper (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)

Unsourced, appears promotional. Dolescum (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, quite possibly speedyable under G11. Jinkinson talk to me 04:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The first paragraph of this article was a direct copy from the website of a firm called CCBUL, probably not unsurprisingly as the article was contributed by the WP:SPA account User:Wikiccbul. Note also that the speedy-deletion tag was removed by User:Sugunan1234. Conversely, the article CCBUL, contributed by User:Sugunan1234, had its speedy-deletion tag removed by User:Wikiccbul, indicating an element of reciprocal editing. AllyD (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The current article is low quality and suffers from unsubstantiated claims and its author's apparent impression that the English language uses capital letters rather than the definite article. Looking more broadly, I can see sporadic use of this term dating back to 1992, so there is a question of whether to keep and improve or to WP:TNT? My view is that the term is insufficiently prevalent at this time, so better deleted. AllyD (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong DeleteArticle appears promotional, and User:wikiccbul and User:Sugunan1234 seem to be socks, like AllyD suggested. Zince34' 10:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable newspaper. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD, I think this article should be improved and also Use of English language should not be a consideration for deletion.( Lets be fair enough with the author) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.73.165.26 (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is grammatical deficiency an argument for retention. If you think that this unreferenced article should be retained, can you advance an an argument based on it having demonstrable notability? AllyD (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toiz[edit]

Toiz (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)

If I read the article correctly, they never released an album. I think this fails WP:BAND. Bensci54 (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Does not meet notability requirements. Dloh cierekim 16:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the singer of the band is very famous and this is his original band, which will be releasing their first album, i really dont see why this would be an issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.253.94 (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets notability requirements based on Ivan Moody being a member. Dloh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.253.94 (talk) 06:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWP:NOTINHERITED would mean it isnt notable just by someone being a member of it. Amortias (T)(C) 15:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa DeVault[edit]

Marissa DeVault (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 person only appears to be notable in connection to a single event. VQuakr (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Virtually all crime articles are single event deals unless it's a celebrity who commits the crime, so that aspect is not really relevant, imo. Either wikipedia covers crime articles or it doesn't. Applying the single event rule to articles this type of article would wipe out almost all crime articles, so that justification doesn't really work. This case has gotten a decent amount of press. On that front I'd say it's marginal, but the murder weapon used is unusual. You don't hear about hammer deaths all that often. I think it meets notability.Bali88 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt weapons are 4% of the total. This is not a crime article, it is a biography of a convict (though in my opinion the crime is not notable as an event, either). VQuakr (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, I would be cool with renaming it to Murder of Dale Harrell. I don't live in Arizona and I've heard of it, so it's getting coverage. However, I didn't know her name and all I knew the murder as the "hammer murder" because that's how they keep referring to it. It seems more appropriate to frame it on the murder. Bali88 (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd probably recommend that if this is kept, it get a name change to Murder of Dale Harrell. DeVault did cause the death but the coverage is by large about the murder and trial of Harrell as opposed to the woman herself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and move. The coverage outside of Arizona is fairly light, but it is there. The Daily Mail covered it, as did Good Morning America. I consider the DM to be as reliable as a leaky bucket but GMA is usable as a reliable source. (The DM is still considered usable by a good portion of editors, so it should be considered as well, I guess.) HLN also covered the murder to some extent, so that could help push the argument for national coverage as well. The murder and subsequent trial does appear to be notable, so this is why I'm endorsing a move to Murder of Dale Harrell per naming conventions. Even the Jodi Arias trial redirects to Murder of Travis Alexander. Generally speaking, people convicted or suspected of murder don't get separate articles unless the coverage focuses predominantly and specifically on them, either pre or post trial. Luka Magnotta is a good example of the type of coverage we'd need in a typical case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's extensive coverage from the Associated Press, such as this story. There's also coverage at CNN, including some wildly sensationalistic transcripts. I'm not exactly thrilled about this article's prospects, but it does seem at at least arguably notable. I agree that the article should be renamed. If the event receives no further coverage or diversity of sources, I suppose we can always come back here and debate it again based on WP:EVENT. I'm sympathetic to the nominator's concerns, but there's a bit too much coverage for me to vote to delete. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still am on the fence regarding this subject's notability, but given the emerging consensus above my initial nomination may be considered Withdrawn for the purposes of WP:SPEEDYKEEP. No need to keep this open for a week as far as I am concerned. Suggest we relocate the move discussion to the article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under A7 criteria (non-admin closure). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

91Hulkster[edit]

91Hulkster (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 the the general notability guideline. Albeit, it does not unfortunately qualify for an A7, and the proposed deletion was contested. No sufficient coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Tutelary (talk) 01:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Şehzade Murad[edit]

Şehzade Murad (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)

Absolutely no references; fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Notability is not inherited. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can find little: Turkish wikipedia article (which is sourced) is a similar stub but a different birth date, which is the same year as the death date. In either case a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create redirect to fathers article. Only content is "Şehzade Murad (born 1513) was the second child of Suleiman the Magnificent and first and only son of Gülfem Hatun. He died in 1521 because of a disease." And quick research suggests little expansion is possible, so its better not to have a separate article, and keep the information at the father's article.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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