Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 May	31 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 Delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InvGate[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to Keep this article on the grounds that InvGate as a organisation "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case the subject is ITSM or ITAM software for the business market, and in particular InvGate is well known as a leader in Gamification in ITSM applications. I cite the following "reliable" and "independent" sources, which include thought leader Martin Thompson and the top industry journal the ITSM Review:

http://www.theitsmreview.com/2012/04/gamification-collecting-coins-service-desk/
http://www.incyclesoftware.com/2013/01/gamification-serious-games-software-development-organizations/
http://www.itsmnapratica.com.br/a-gamificacao-invadiu-nossa-praia/
http://bobjenkins999721446.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/understanding-the-difference-between-gamification-simulations-and-serious-games/
http://www.totalcustomer.org/2012/04/11/gamification-service-delivery/#sthash.c3CdSqOk.dpbs
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/2012-SAM-Tools-Review-1769350.S.100657153

Additionally I would site the following currently acceptable articles within the similar product categories that I consider have had less significant coverage and have less notoriety. Gemini (issue tracking system), GLPI, IssueNet, OTRS, Plain Ticket,BugTracker.NET, Cerebro (software), codeBeamer, FogBugz, Ikiwiki.
Marcel.heys1 (talk)

There's an essay explaining that just because other stuff exists is not a convincing argument to keep another article. I looked at the articles you listed. I nominated a number of them while others clearly meet notability guidelines. On a separate note, those are all product articles and this is an article about a company: "InvGate Software is a privately held Software Development company". You should focus on the notability of this company and nothing else. That is described as having been the subject of 1) significant coverage in 2) reliable, 3) independent secondary sources. The sources you provided are not significant coverage of the company. Not all of them are reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the statement that "just because other stuff exists is not a convincing argument to keep another article". The other stuff exists article makes several clear statements that the existence of other stuff is a reasonable precedent. I offer the following quotes from that article

"identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts "
"While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument "
This Page in a Nutshell: "A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others"
"Editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These comparisons may or may not be valid"

I believe it is logical and fair to conclude from this that relating the article in question to other similar articles can indeed form part of a valid argument.

In relation with the notability criteria, I do not agree with the statement that the sources I have provided "are not significant coverage of the company. Not all of them are reliable sources.". In my opinion the coverage is both significant and reliable, especially when read in conjunction with the additional articles already included in the InvGate article (but not listed here).
Any objection on those grounds should be supported by the presentation of both objective and verifiable criteria to rule out a source or particular element of coverage, a "he says, she says" argument is not valid.
Until such criteria are presented and all sources are evaluated, the sources as listed must stand.
Marcel.heys1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I nominated most of those articles for deletion and they're going to be deleted. Then you won't have an argument on which to fall back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, do you have any links to articles, scholarly reviews or books that discuss InvGate at length? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established by WP:RS 1292simon (talk) 23:28, 7 June 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)} 02:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SCRUM Integration Challenges[edit]

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

Essentially an instruction manual, unsourced and overly essay-like. Anything useful and encyclopedic can be merged to Scrum (software development) if not already covered. There are several such articles recently created, (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Importance Of Implementing SCRUM into Organizations and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product Owner and Product Backlog in Scrum) and hopefully public discussion will prevent future self-publishing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. There seems to have been a recent class project somewhere on SCRUM and the students have been directed to upload their homework. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Importance Of Implementing SCRUM into Organizations. Ivanvector (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with above that this is a essay about challanges with SCRUM. Not really encyclopedic. Hasteur (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grab what information is viable and merge into Scrum (software development) and delete the rest. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 2 June 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 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Motion (album)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. I though I had something at AllMusic, but it's just a user review and track listing. The sort of things I found were like this user-reviewed site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was not able to find any sources describing the album.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:56, 7 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biometrics Institute[edit]

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

Notability concerns, and a near advert. Sections 3 and 4 could do with being WP:TNTd. Laun chba ller 22:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It certainly does read like an advert. The tone is breathless publicity in style. Not sure there's much notability here doktorb _words^deeds 23:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Naively written commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
delete plain advert. Can't believe it has survived this many years on WP , so good of nom tofind this. LibStar (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

− ::I didn't find it. Wikifarzin tried to use it as an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for keeping European Association of Biometrics on RHaworth's talk page.--Laun chba ller 09:50, 1 June 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 A bunch of chickens and pigs decided to write an encyclopedia. No wait, that's not right. How about, Today, I'm going to delete this article. No blockers. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Importance Of Implementing SCRUM into Organizations[edit]

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

Essentially a how-to guide with a non-neutral title. Not appropriate for WIkipedia but possibly may have a place at Wikibooks or Wikiversity. Substantial thematic overlap with Scrum (software development) and Scrum in Marketing Department. Article would likely need a complete re-write to achieve neutrality and non-instructional tone. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. I'm not familiar with the other wikis mentioned but it sure doesn't belong here. Anything useful in this article would be better added to Scrum (software development). No redirect - not a likely search term. Ivanvector (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHow to article in written in incomprehensible management-style gobbledegook.TheLongTone (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Also delete Scrum in Marketing Department and SCRUM Integration Challenges, for the same reason. The Category:SCRUM in Marketing is also up for deletion. One or several editors seem to be posting their class project, based on User:Shiv.jad's talk page. Perhaps they can be talked into contributing to the existing article rather than submitting their own which, though well written, are not suitable for the encyclopedia. Ivanvector (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HOWTO, and possibly as a potential fork problem. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 2 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohan sai[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. G S Palmer (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Clearly an article made for self-promotion with dubious notability. Cowlibob (talk) 15:35, 6 June 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 redirect to Huwwarah. Randykitty (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shatnawi[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence of notability here and the article is almost completely unintelligible W. D. Graham 18:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

~~Speedy~~ Redirect to Huwwarah as it appears the Al Shatnawi family is one of the two prominent families in that village. Can find no sources to indicate that the family is otherwise notable, and the language in the article is too poorly organized to determine where one might research their notability anyway. Created by a WP:SPA from the looks of it. Can someone who reads Arabic check http://www.shatnawi.org for potential direct-translated copyvio? Ivanvector (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: based on there being a page for the other of the two prominent families (Gharaibeh) I suspect an encyclopedic article about this family can be written. However, as I said I can't follow the language as it is at all to even try to fix it, and there are no references nor can I find any online that are useful. This is going to be the rare instance that I !vote WP:NUKEANDPAVE (I hate that essay, btw). Ivanvector (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, screw that. ~~Changing to redirect and userfy (to my userspace) and I will try to fix it.~~ I really hate that essay, you guys. Ivanvector (talk) 23:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - notability not established. 1292simon (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did try to go through this article and sort through the language, as well as checking the sources. The language is hard to follow, but it seems to be more like a oral-tradition-type family history of the article creator than a factual history of the clan. I also couldn't verify that the sources exist, let alone support the information cited in the article. I did try to verify via the sources in the Gharaibeh article, and located a copy of a book entitled "The Tribes of Jordan at the Beginning of the 21st Century" by Ghazi bin Muhammad (1998) which seems reasonably authoritative, and contains no mention of this family. The "official website" listed in external links is in Arabic and it took me a while to find an online translator that would accept the page, but now it appears to be the creator's personal blog. I have to say there isn't anything salvageable here. Redirect as noted above. Ivanvector (talk) 19:04, 8 June 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 01:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adult Match Maker[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. I haven't found any non-trivial coverage of the website using Google search apart from self-published info and affiliate sites. It might meet the second criterion - winning a well-known independent award, but I don't know how well-known the 3 awards listed are. I think the award for "most supportive sponsor" probably fails the "independent" criterion. The third award might be the best-known one, having a Wikipedia entry, but I can't find any mention of Adult Match Maker on their site. Additionally, the majority of the current article is listing various features of the website, which have no place on Wikipedia. Daß Wölf (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant and well-known Australian business which should meet GNG with little trouble. Unfortunately their SEO has done an amazing job of bastardising their Google results for things which aren't their website, which is making actual coverage of them surprisingly hard to find for a company of their size. If I had access to a decent newspaper database this would get a lot easier. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife, I googled dozens of sources that mention the site, some linked below, and hope you'll reconsider based on whether the subject does meet GNG, rather than whether it should meet GNG. Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be shocked if it didn't for a business of their size and public profile, but I'm also not terribly sympathetic towards them for polluting their Google results with SEO so badly that it's difficult to find them. As I said, this would be something made a lot easier if I had access to a news database with decent business coverage. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as extremely notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions are supposed to be based on the strength of arguments and evidence; that's just a baseless assertion. Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good point I suppose, Anyway changed to delete as 1. I must've been on another planet!, and 2. there's actually no evidence of notability at all ... Just seems to be different sites (ie .co.uk, .au etc etc) and that's it. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~Delete - I found 16 newspaper articles on NewsBank that mention this website, most in the context of various cases of fraud by members against other members. None of the articles discuss the website in depth, ~~but by shear number of articles, this subject would seem to squeak by on notability.~~- Mr X 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, part of the reason behind GNG wanting significant coverage, rather than trivial mentions, is to ensure there are sources on which to base an article. In this case, there are not. As WP:WEB says, "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles with no realistic hope of expansion nor articles based primarily on what the subject or its creators say about themselves." Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like the above "keep" voters, I found the subject has attracted considerable notice, but no independent reliable sources with significant coverage. Unlike them, I think this fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. I found many published articles that mention the site in passing, often listed in the same same sentence with competing sites, but none with any depth. Just four mentioned/described the website in more than a single sentence, and even then they had little information. Even combining sources, there's not adequate coverage to provide expected rudimentary information about the subject. Below are examples, with quotes. I excluded some advice columns/blogs in newspapers, which are borderline reliable sources depending on how they're used, but coverage in those was similar, or entirely anecdotal. I also omitted the many duplicates of these articles published in sibling Fairfax Media & News Limited newspapers, sometimes with different titles but identical content. I'm sure I've overlooked some sources, and if any provide significant coverage, please cite them so I can reconsider this issue.
- Brookfield, Joanne (2014-02-09). "Players aplenty in dating game". The Sydney Morning Herald. "...Oasis and Adult Match Maker were pretty much your original 'pick-up style' sites," she says of the way sites are perceived and used. "Depending on which site you were registered on, the expectations on meeting someone were pre-defined. For example, if you were on RHP and Adult Match Maker the expectation was NSA [no strings attached] sex; whereas if you met someone on RSVP you can almost guarantee sex was not even on the radar for the first meet," she says.
- Barr, Lollie (2013-07-12). "The Rise Of Single Women Going Online For Sex". Marie Claire. AdultMatchMaker.com.au, an Australian "adult" dating site, has more than 2.1 million registered members,... ... But back to Ella. In the past five months, her Adult Match Maker inbox has received thousands of messages from guys looking for a sexual encounter. ... In nine months last year, Ella slept with 14 men that she'd met through Adult Match Maker. "I had just come out of a horrendous relationship," she recalls. "I was happy just having lovers and not getting emotionally attached. Within the first hour, I had more than 60 guys contact me.
- Hildebrand, Joe (2012-06-30). "How to beat the birthday blues". Herald Sun. This would involve banging your secretary (which nowadays means opening a secret Adult Matchmaker account and getting rejected by 27-year-olds), spending your kids' inheritance on a Commodore SS V8, and telling your few remaining friends that really you were always destined to be a great writer/footballer/Broadway musical star...
- Pepper, Daile (2010-08-30). "The ugly truth about dating". The Sydney Morning Herald. While the most popular sites are RSVP, Adult Matchmaker, eHarmony and Oasis Active, there is plenty of room in the market for newcomers, with almost 33 per cent of Australians single, according to the survey.
- Toy, Mary-Anne (2010-04-19). "One in four adults finds mate online". The Sydney Morning Herald. The most popular dating websites among those polled were RSVP (54 per cent), Adult Match Maker (21 per cent), eHarmony (20 per cent) and Oasis Active (19 per cent).
- Toy, Mary-Anne (2010-04-17). "Sex and our city". The Sydney Morning Herald. Adult dating sites such as Red Hot Pie and Adult Match Maker, aimed at singles and swingers, claim memberships of almost 1.8 million and 1.9 million respectively, with thousands online at any time seeking someone to "hook up" with.
- Toy, Mary-Anne (2010-04-17). "How the web is changing the (mating) game". The Sydney Morning Herald. The most popular dating site was RSVP (operating the longest in Australia), followed by Adult Matchmaker, eHarmony and Oasis Active.
- Gubby, Rachel; Halliday, Claire (2010-02-28). "Secrets and lives". The Sydney Morning Herald. It is almost certain that some of the 1776 members of adultmatchmaker.com who were online talking sex at two o'clock on Friday afternoon were doing so without the knowledge of their partner.
- Halliday, Claire (2010-02-28). "All dressed up with somewhere to go". The Sydney Morning Herald. To find out, I selected a party from a directory list on adultmatchmaker.com and contacted the organiser.
- Slater, Bridget (2010). "Love or Lies: Deception in internet dating" (PDF). 7pm Journal of Digital Research & Publishing. 2010 Semester 1. The University of Sydney: 32,35. There are also sites that focus on the intimate encounters side of things, such as Adultmatchmaker.com and one part of the Lavalife site. ... This seems to be a more advanced version of the website sites such as adult matchmaker.
- Burke, Kelly (2009-11-21). "Internet hook-ups hurt sex industry". The Sydney Morning Herald. But other sites which are more upfront about their purpose, such as FlingFinder, adultmatchmaker.com.au and benaughty.com are proliferating.
- Smith, Anthony; Grierson, Jeffrey; von Doussa, Henry; Pitts, Marian; Clement, Thomas (2009). "Appendix 2". Mapping Gay Men's Communities (Report). Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society, La Trobe University. pp. 79–83 http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/downloads/arcshs-research-publications/GayMappingAppendix-2.pdf. {{cite report}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) (Website is listed in tables of summary data of sites listed by survey participants).
- Allen, Steve (2009-08-16). "Lad mags hit as moisturised man chooses grooming over gals". The Age. You can't put up a photo of yourself in your boardies on adultmatchmaker.com and expect to get someone who's interested in you …
- Perkins, Miki (2008-11-19). "No jail over net cosmetic con job". The Age. It was an ignominious end to a relationship that began when Carlin, of Rowville, and her victim, who was referred to in court as "AB", met on the dating website Adult Match Maker in October 2006, and struck up a friendship.
- Pilcher, Georgie (2008-11-19). "Cancer conwoman Jaimi Lyn Carlin walks free". Herald Sun. Carlin, of Rowville, met the married man on the Adult Match Maker dating website in October 2006.
- Pilcher, Georgie (2008-11-18). "Internet lover single mother faked cancer for cash". Herald Sun. The County Court yesterday heard the pair met through dating website Adult Match Maker and began a friendship in October 2006.
- Pilcher, Georgie (2008-11-18). "Jaimi Carlin sentenced to 20 months' jail, suspended for two years". Herald Sun. The court heard the pair met through dating website Adult Match Maker and began a friendship in October 2006.
- Perkins, Miki (2008-11-18). "Woman's cosmetic surgery scam 'callous'". The Age. The County Court heard that Carlin and her victim, known as AB, met on the online Adult Match Maker website.
- Power, Emily (2007-11-27). "Woman on fraud charges". Herald Sun. Melbourne Magistrates' Court was told they had profiles on Adult Match Maker.
- Elliott, Tim (2007-06-22). "Find the keys to true love". The Sydney Morning Herald. Mentioning your masters on Chekhov won't cut much ice on AdultMatchMaker.com, where, right now, sex-4-fun is on the hunt for "open-minded couples".
- Jacobsen, Geesche (2007-07-07). "Rogue in a voyeur's paradise". The Sydney Morning Herald. Another of the top five sites, Adult Matchmaker, allows users to select their match by sexual predilections. Whether they are looking for group sex, bondage or just want to watch, they can state their preference on this site.
- Halliday, Claire (2006-10-02). "Why your next affair may be online". The Sydney Morning Herald. She often accesses them via online dating websites such as redhotpie.com and adultmatchmaker.com.au, which each boast memberships in the hundreds of thousands.
- Dobbin, Emma-Kate (2006-02-10). "Love cats". The Sydney Morning Herald. But the 'information super-highway' can't be ignored for meeting people, with so many sites springing up: RSVP, Match.com, Lava life, Adult Match Maker.
- Lucy, Niall; Mickler, Steve (2006). The war on democracy: conservative opinion in the Australian press. University of Western Australia Press. p. 138. ISBN 978-1-920694-90-6. ... just about any given night of commercial television programming (on free-to-air or pay-TV), where shows like Sex and the City, Big Brother Uncut and Naked News are interrupted by advertisements for phone sex and adultmatchmaker.com, ...
- Law Institute Journal: The Official Organ of the Law Institute of Victoria. Reviews Pty. Limited. 2005. p. 85. Internet sites: for heterosexuals: www.rsvp.com.au (there are almost 500,000 members in Australia alone). www.match.com.au, www.aussiematchmaker.com.au and www.adultmatchmaker.com; for gay and bi men: www.gaymatchmaker.com ...

One cautionary note about the coverage is that Fairfax Media, which owns the publishers of most of the above material, also owns Australia's (supposedly) leading online dating site, RSVP, and it raises the issue of "independence" of the coverage. RSVP provides the only market share estimates about AdultMatchMaker, in their annual "Date of the Nation" reports, which forms the basis for most of the Wikipedia article; it is cited as a reliable source because it was described in a Fairfax Media newspaper.

--Agyle (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I agree with Agyle here. I think this fails the notability test. United States Man (talk) 03:33, 10 June 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 19:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taryam Boyd[edit]

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

Non notable actor, Fails GNG, Other than River City he's not notable for anything else, Despite my recent additions I genuinely see no evidence of any notability, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:14, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United World Telecom[edit]

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

Non-notable 25-person company, article posted as advertising or spam. Fails WP:RS as the only "sources" are a directory listing on "zoominfo.com", a BBB membership which the company bought and paid for and the company's own website. The "Awards" section is a joke - the supposed "awards" are that they obtained a license from the Federal Communications Commission and paid the annual fee to join the Better Business Bureau. *yawn*

There are thousands of tiny companies tinkering with voice over IP in one fashion or another. This article fails to explain why this particular hole-in-the-wall operator is a notable company. The repeated WP:COI edits from Special:Contributions/Baptiste UWT are also a huge red flag, although the worst has been reverted by now. K7L (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:CORP. References do not meet criteria for conferring notability. A Google failed to yield anythng that rings the notability bell. Bottom-line: This is a small business, one of millions, with no real claim to encyclopedic notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 18:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 31 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 both. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Green (English Footballer)[edit]

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

This footballer has never played in a fully professional league, meaning that he fails the subject-specific WP:NFOOTBALL, and has never been the subject of coverage in reliable independent third-party sources, meaning that he fails the wider WP:GNG. PROD was removed by article creator with no reason given -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the exact same reasons I am also nominating

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - neither has received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning both articles fail WP:GNG snd WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - players who have not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fail WP:NFOOTY still stands. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Fenix down (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:55, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both, I know Josh personally myself and if you looked at his twitter he has signed for fleetwood and also through knowing him, I can confirm that mason is indeed his step brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfctippy (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green remains non-notable until such time as he actually plays in a fully professional league, not just signs for a team. And being his brother does not confer notability on Springthorpe, who has likewise never played in a fully pro league (and looks very unlikely to any time soon, given that he is without a club) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Guidelines are pretty clear on footie. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 5 June 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 00:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mordechai Benshemesh[edit]

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

From the sources in the article, this person does not appear to meet the notability standards of WP:CREATIVE. Article was created by User:Mordechai Benshemesh so there may be a conflict of interest. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The "Unsung Architects" piece is the most substantial but by its very title is not really making a claim for notability. Multiple searches aren't really turning up anything stronger, so I agree that notability is not demonstrated. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD and Ahecht, did you see the new sourcing? czar ♔ 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but while recognising the effort that has gone into adding material on two buildings into the article, they are indicative of the work done through the subject's career (as any professional must do) rather than evidence of notability. I can't see the book on "Melbourne Architecture" and am possibly unfairly judging by assuming the single page reference to be a passing mention - if it is instead the first page of an entire chapter on the subject and his work, then that would indicate notability. The WP:CREATIVE criteria do set a high bar (higher than say for professional footballers) but I am not seeing which is/are met here? AllyD (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of authentic sources if you look for them. The article lists several of his notable buildings.---Ipigott (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His most famous building - Edgewater Towers in St Kilda is considered as one of Melbourne's iconic buildings. It has recently been included in the Open House Melbourne Program and has undergone substantial refurbishment over the last 5 years. This building was the first privately built highrise in Melbourne pre-dating Robin Boyd's Domain Park Apartments in South Yarra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgewaterTowers (talk • contribs) 04:17, 1 June 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, slakr^\ talk / 02:44, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep have provided sufficient additional independent verifable references and re-formatted the article. It is highly unlikely that the original author is the author of the article given he died in 1993.Dan arndt (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per extra sources that have been added by User:Dan arndt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 24 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now sufficiently sourced to pass WP:GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:42, 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. slakr^\ talk / 03:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Shadows[edit]

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

The article is currently built entirely of primary sources, and a video game reliable sources search for sources that might confer notability upon the topic (or its subtopics such as "Adventures in Video Game Development") reveal only two press releasey blurbs [1] and a whole lot of unedited press releases [2]. As such, the article topic fails the notability guidelines for want of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) czar ♔ 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Keep Discussion[edit]

Delete as per nom. The article contains a single third party source that is recognised as reliable, but the subject of that reference isn't the game itself, its the YouTube channel that the developers are posting their progress on. The layout and amount of content are great, the problem is the sources. As regards what to do with the article, it's hard to say send it for incubation, because the content first appeared on this user's sandbox but the content was copied from there and created as an article by a separate user, so userfying the page will need a bit of digging to find out who to send it back to. - X201 (talk) 15:27, 30 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) X201 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's got potential, but it really needs to tone it down. In its current form, it should be deleted under the "fundamental rewrite" clause. --McDoob AU93 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Maybe someday, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. There's little to no third party sources covering it on detail, so it fails the GNG. Also, it's written like more of a "developer's diary" or "fan's documentation" than an encyclopedia article, so it should really just be started from scratch if/when it meets the GNG someday. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Many, many sources, but they're all primary or unreliable third-party. The single reliable third-party reference is a Destructoid blog with no actual content for us to use. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hold On. First of all, I would like to say that I am the original author of the article. This is a reputable game that has been featured on may gaming sites. Apparently I made a mistake citing their official site and interviews a few too many times, but the content may be found on plenty of other gaming sites, including press release converage on notable sites such as GamaSutra. Also, I don't think any of your assessments are quite fair, as much of the content of this article may be seen directly from their YouTube videos. This should not be considered a "primary source," as the videos themselves demonstrate the game, and a portion of this page is dedicated to those videos and the progress the team has demonstrated. They are not a primary source, they are literally the subject of the article... Wait on the deletion and I will add more reputable sources to appease you guys.

Edit: I would also object to this on the grounds of obfuscation and a fundamental philosophical disagreement here. First of all, who is a better source to cite for information regarding a game than the developers themselves? Than video footage literally demonstrating and showing EXACTLY what the article depicts first-hand? Your evangelical quest to only cite other sources will only result in adding an additional layer of bias to the article and separate it even further from the sources, which are the development team and their videos. The article is written in such a manner that every paragraph is verifiable via the AiGD series. So what you're saying is the only "reputable" sources about a game are not the developers themselves, not the gameplay footage, and not the sources that are actually unbiased and most reputable, but opinionated articles from the gaming press and their editors reporting on a source that could have been cited here directly? That's not unbiased encyclopediac information. I created an article about a GAME referencing the ACTUAL GAME, not a hodge-podge of various biased third party sources. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are a primary source, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.". There's nothing wrong with YouTube as a primary source to prove that Charlie Sheen actually said his latest rant, but it needs third party sources to support it as being noteworthy and for it to be interpreted by unconnected parties. As the creators they have an inherent bias to their product, they are also just one single source of information, should we take their word for it or multiple third party sources each with their own viewpoint on it? - X201 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start improving the article and adding sources, by all means do so. If the article transforms into something that fits notability and verifiability and has more third-party sourcing, you'll see people !vote to keep it or even change !votes; I'd be willing to change mine if the content improves, hence my "weak delete" !vote. --McDoob AU93 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I'm working on it. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any Better? I added non-primary sources to at least every major section of the article, from sites like indiegamingmagazine.com, retrogamingmagazine.com, seganerds.com, segabits.com, and rpgwatch.com. The first two are very reputable sources, and SegaNerds and SegaBits are very reputable, highly-esteemed sources on Sega-specific games and homebrew, which Elysian Shadows is classified as. Let me know your feedback, and thank you for working with me. Edit: oops, cited a blogspot. Apologies. Removing. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We maintain a list of reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. Many of the aforementioned sources do not meet our editorial standards for inclusion as sources. I started a thread about this on the article's talk page. czar ♔ 20:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also re: your original comment about "who better than the developers": we're discussing the notability of the article topic itself. Sure, the devs will be the ones releasing the info about the game (and primary sources can be occasionally cited as self-published sources), but we rely on the reliable secondary sources to be the ones to say whether a topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Many pre-release games do not have enough secondary coverage to sustain an article, which is why we wait for the secondary sources to indicate that a topic is covered enough for us to make a decent article about it czar ♔ 20:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I understand now. My sincerest apologies. I fundamentally misunderstood the importance and goal of the secondary sources, and was battling a straw man as a result of my own ignorance. Thank you guys for the clever analogies and clarification on the matter. I will work to make the article compliant with these standards. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 13:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.146.88 (talk) [reply]

KEEP I have gone through the list of approved secondary references and have found that a couple of them have covered Elysian Shadows. Now it is just a matter of integrating them into the article effectively. I'll share them once I am done editing.--Cube b3 (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Id be interested to see this list. What is currently in the article, would mostly not meet WP:RS, and thus, the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also did not want to bomb anyone with a list of secondary references that do not meet video game reliable sources.

http://indiegames.com/2014/06/elysian_shadows_coming_to_pc_o.html

I found this website in the list of approved names so I thought I'd share it here.

http://nichegamer.net/2014/06/elysian-shadows-interview-building-the-next-generation-2d-rpg/

This one isn't on the list, but it is an indepth interview and touches upon several things covered in the article.

http://gamasutra.com/view/pressreleases/217250/Discover_A_World_Separated_By_Magic_and_Technology.php

Gamasutra are just sharing the press release would that count?

Should I integrate these references into the article?

What about references from unreliable sources like Gamefaqs, can it be included if the information is intact accurate?--Cube b3 (talk) 17:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the article has references from Destructoid and now IndieGamingMagazine which are both huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.146.88 (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Destructoid article has absolutely zero information about the game itself. It's essentially a blog piece about the developers' video diary. And IndieGamingMagazine, also apparently known as Indie Game Magazine doesn't appear reliable in the slightest. The top results in our custom Google search is about their pay-for-review policies. Woodroar (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Additionally, the Gamasutra source is merely an unchanged, reprinted press release. The opening sentences literally state this. That doesn't count as third party coverage. It's just a copy/paste of the game makers press release. Gamefaqs is unusable - their content violates WP:SPS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Even without those links, the game was covered by Indiegames.com, as an approved source, and the video series was covered by Destructoid as an approved source, which justifies including AiGD in the article... I feel like you guys are being unfair. Those two alone are two huge sources that most indie games on Wikipedia don't have, the project is literally exploding in the press right now and has been covered on dozens of sites, and they have an extremely popular YouTube series with over 9k subs. These guys also were the top rated game on all of reddit for screenshot Saturday three times in a row. CLEARLY the project has a large relevance to the indie gaming scene... Half of the indie games on here THAT HAVE ALREADY LAUNCHED don't have half the press coverage, references, or sources this game has. Furthermore, they signed a publishing deal for the Sega Dreamcast with a reputable publisher and studio, which itself is pretty significant for the project and the history of the Dreamcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.234.1 (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability requirements call for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", meaning sources must be significant (often referred to as "non-trivial") and reliable/reputable and independent/third-party. Merely being mentioned by Destructoid or Indiegames as in the sources above isn't enough. We're looking for feature articles about the game itself, about its features, about its plot and gameplay, about its development. In many cases, this simply isn't possible until the game is released and even then many games simply don't garner the coverage that we require. Basing our articles on sources is a core content policy at Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but the sources simply aren't there yet. Woodroar (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. 1292simon (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. I also believe this fails notability. United States Man (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Spamming[edit]

I would like to request the fans of Adventures in Game Development to please calm down and stop leaving unsigned comments here, we are trying to discuss an intellectual discussion and find ways to rewrite the article in a way that conforms to Wikipedia standards. I have written most of the indie Dreamcast game articles and it is a process. I am working on it, let me discuss with the admins here and understand how to improve the article.

You are welcomed to share secondary references here with us.

Thank You.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying secondary references that work[edit]

1) I am still a little confused about the Gamasutra article. Yes, they have basically mirrored the press release but shouldn't the fact that a reliable secondary resource acknowledges their press release be enough. If I shared their press release directly from pressrelease.com, it would've been another primary source. GS sharing it makes it a secondary source even if they weren't bothered enough to rewrite it in their own words.

2) I just need an admin approval on the other 2 references from indiegames.com and nichegamer.net; those articles/interviews look good to me, I just want an admin to agree or disagree with me before I edit them into the article?--Cube b3 (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the Gamasutra article as a source (as long as it's not that could cause a WP:NPOV problem) but you can't use it as a source to demonstrate notability, because zero percent of it came from the third party. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with those 2 sources. You can run it by WP:VG/S's talk page and see if you can get an endorsement or not. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Primary sources are primary sources, no matter where they are hosted. (See WP:PRIMARY.) Like sources writing about themselves, they are of limited use to editors as they are inherently biased and often require synthesis to draw conclusions. For these and other reasons, primary sources do not "count" towards notability requirements.

I believe you may misunderstand the role of admins on Wikipedia. An admin is an editor with janitorial powers, nothing more and nothing less. Determinations on source reliability and article content are based on consensus, which admins may contribute to as editors or may use their tools to enforce (as long as they are not involved in the dispute). Others have mentioned it previously, but I strongly suggest reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and feel free to open a new discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources if you feel that Niche Gamer should be considered as a reliable source. Based on previous discussion, I doubt that will be the case, as it doesn't appear to have strong editorial policies, a staff of reliable game journalists, and doesn't seem to be discussed much among other reliable sources. Indie Games is generally considered a reliable source, but the article isn't "substantial coverage" as required by WP:GNG and it would almost certainly fail WP:CRYSTALBALL as "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors". Woodroar (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ SergeCross73 given that indie games is already on the list of approved references I will go ahead and integrate it into the article. I have however went ahead and posted the other one on the discussion page.

@ Woodrar: Thank you for the insights, I will continue to search for more references :).--Cube b3 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)--Cube b3 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 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 01:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chitrojogot.com[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. I could not find any indepth coverage and nothing in Bangladeshi major news service bdnews24.com LibStar (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Also found no significant coverage of the topic to meet notability criteria. I was searching only for English-language sources, so if other Bengali sources are found, please link them here for consideration. One Bengali article was cited in the article, from The Daily Inqilab, although it provides only minor coverage (one paragraph). Agyle (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Argyle.

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deavan Ebersole[edit]

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

Notability concerns - article contains no reliable references. Laun chba ller 14:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. probably an autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked. Article was started by Inbetweenxxx, and he took it to this state, so it probably was.--Laun chba ller 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Poorly sourced and I can't find any evidence that they meet WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk)

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Last Day (animated short)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) Not sure this is a "film," and therefore not even sure WP:NF applies. On the other hand, I'm not sure its "anime" either, since it was written by and for non-Japanese peoples. 2) Whatever it is, its sourced. 12.249.243.118 (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, let alone WP:NF. Having a reference to the Youtube page isn't enough. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the other two references...? 12.249.243.118 (talk) 13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It was reviewed by THEM Anime Reviews, which is a reliable source. While normally I wouldn't say keep for just one source, the general lack of reliable reviews for anime (outside of Anime News Network) means we could need some leeway for the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see enough references to pass WP:N, the referenced info just needs to be placed and cited in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the reviews are pretty routine coverage, but I guess Christian church-sponsored anime is a bit pioneering. 1292simon (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - found a summary by a UK magazine that might be of use. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't usually deal with film, so I'm not that familiar with the notability rules. However, a quick look at WP:NF convinces me that the references cited here (not all of them; I agree the YouTube link, as self-published, doesn't count for much) are sufficient to qualify. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ca' Foscari. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aula Baratto[edit]

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

It's a room in a fairly important Venetian palace; it's been called Baratto for a tiny proportion of its existence. Unsurpisingly, there doesn't seem to be a notability guideline at WP:ROOM; if there was, this one would probably fail it.

I'd suggested merging this to Ca' Foscari; the merge tag has twice been removed from the article, so this seems to be the next step. I know this is AfD, but would be happy to see some referenced content (currently, none of it) merged there, within the limits of WP:UNDUE.

There may be a WP:COI problem here also. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 16 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 ♔ 12:28, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, room not insependantly notable.TheLongTone (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as per nom. By the way, Gloyra and 157.138.100.192 should have contributed to the Merge discussion rather than removing the Merge tag. 1292simon (talk) 13:40, 8 June 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 19:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Morris I[edit]

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

He is an early arrival in the USA but seems to have no particular notability. Most of the article is about his son Nicholas. It's a nice little article for a family genealogy publication, and apparently well-sourced to primary sources, but appears to be completely inappropriate for an international encyclopedia. PamD 12:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though in view of the inaccuracy of the lead sentence (see talk page) I'm not so sure about its usefulness even for family historians! PamD 12:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A NN colonist, even his son the judge seems NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:56, 6 June 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 19:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M&M (Uganda)[edit]

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

this one keeps popping up. It seems like unambiguous advertising to me. Polyglot (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whac-A-Mole. Deleted two days ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muwema & Mugerwa (Uganda). Some new citations but no new claim to notability. RS coverage is passing mentions only. • Gene93k (talk) 12:59, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adan Reyes[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. Limited success as amateur - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX. His junior accomplishments don't give him notability, nor does his Golden Gloves win or fighting for a minor title.Jakejr (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in WP:NBOX. Papaursa (talk) 03:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas Gorny[edit]

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

Deproded by creator, Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies). Next to no coverage of this person in any mainstream, reliable sources; those used in the article discuss some companies he was involved with and barely mention him. (And yes, I've reviewed the three sources added since my prod and they don't seem to change much). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 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 ♔ 04:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's very borderline so I was hoping that others would weigh in, but based on the Businessweek profile and his being noted in mostly local coverage I'm going to go with a very hesitant weak keep. It may be too soon, but he does seem to be noted as the leader of some relatively new enterprises that are themselves borderline notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 31 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 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 no consensus. While this short discussion is slightly leaning toward article deletion, other sentiments exist such as retention and merging. The notion of a potential merge can continue in a discussion on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Property Law Certification[edit]

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

This is some local certification for lawyers in Florida. There is no explanation on it's Notability. The only sources cited is the web site of the organization that issues the certificate (and both are dead links). There are no reliable independent sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 07:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam, and probably not notable. The only nationally recognized licensure for intellectual property law in the United States is by admission, after a bar examination, to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. One must be registered by the USPTO after passing their registration exam. One need not be an attorney to take the exam, but that is the only commonly recognized exam. I saw from The Florida Bar's website that it exists, but that does not confer automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with a caveat. There are a number of certifications in various specialties, and I think having an article that discusses them is worthwhile. I think the certifications are notable. The American Bar Association maintains a standing committee on such specializations, and publishes a guide on such specializations. As far as I know, Florida is the only state bar certification for IP law; but North Carolina is introducing a certification for trademark law ([3]). In addition, a number of law schools offer their own certifications in IP law, including Chicago-Kent School of Law; University of California at Davis School of Law; Depaul University College of Law (with certificates both in general IP and in patent law); and Santa Clara University's (called a High Tech Law Certificate, but clearly IP).

I suggest that the article be fleshed out to cover IP law specialization certification in general, both state-bar certification and law-school certification. As a topic it's clearly notable, even if the Florida program, standing alone, is not.

As a USPTO admittee myself, I agree with Bearian that the USPTO admission is the only formal program in the US for admission to practice in a particular specialty; but this is not about admission, it's about certification.

I would frankly like to see articles on all the various types of specialties, which can be viewed at the ABA's site. This article is perhaps the first, but I think it's a good start. I would like to see it fleshed out, and the bit about Florida's particular implementation of the certification stubbed down to a 2- or 3-sentence paragraph. TJRC (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., can you work on it to bring it up to snuff? Bearian (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it closes Keep, I'll give it a shot; although it will likely be more stubby than some of my previous AFD rescues (e.g., [4], [5]). TJRC (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Florida Bar. Does not appear notable enough for a separate article as per User:Bearian.--Pink Bull 16:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm staying with my "Keep" as stated above, but if not, while I don't object to merging to The Florida Bar, it should not redirect there (as is usually the case for merges). There are other IP law certifications than the Florida Bar's, and a reader seeking information on IP law certification is misserved by being directed to The Florida Bar. TJRC (talk) 00:58, 23 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, slakr^\ talk / 01:28, 23 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 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. The comment regarding Fighting Roach Brothers came too late to discuss here, consider this no consensus on that article. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Roach[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer. One brother is more notable but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG. Having a famous brother does not give him notability.Jakejr (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. He doesn't meet NBOX or GNG and notability is not inherited. Papaursa (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because if Joey get's deleted on notability grounds as already happened to Pepper the only member of this family remaining is Freddie and he already has a good article. The Fighting Roach Brothers article essentially duplicates the notable information.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:49, 6 June 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. (soft). The main policy/guideline-based concerns raised are notability of entertainers (ENTERTAINER) and lack of substantial, reliable, independent sourcing for verifying an assertion to notability. slakr^\ talk / 03:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Schaller[edit]

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

Non-notable magician. While there are lots of links to be found about this guy, they all appear to be self-promotion. Nothing independent to be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links posted in references are indepedent. For example; the website listed with his products is the biggest magic shop world wide and not run / moderated by Kevin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MagicContinental (talk • contribs) 20:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Links posted actually aren't independent. While Schaller does not control or moderate All About Magicians, he surely wrote his own biography for that site, where he sells his wares. Just because someone sells their goods at a magic shop, that doesn't make them a notable magician. The other sources are equally not independent: a video on Vimeo (posted by the subject himself) of a radio interview (not indicating which radio station or program broadcast the interview), and DVDs produced by the subject himself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right about this All About Magicians website, I dont actually know. However I can tell you that not everyone can sell magic at magic shops and the DVDs are not produced by the subject himself, but by popular magic companies. (They may not be known outside of magic, but if you are a magician you will know about their popularity, if not research will proof. (i.e. Full52 Magic Productions) Just had to add this to this discussion; the final decision is still up to you - the administrators. 178.4.242.118 (talk) 16:42, 15 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 ♔ 00:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It is entirely possible that this individual is important, but the criteria is not importance or even creativity... it is whether he has done something that third party sources have written about, and none are cited. Even his IMDB profile lists only one production and it was one that he wrote himself. Other people have to write about him for the subject to be considered notable. In the future, he may be notable, but just not now. The article borders on self-promotion. Nickmalik (talk) 20:58, 20 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nickmalik: You wrote "IMDB profile lists only one production and it was one that he wrote himself". Makes no sense; Tom Six i.e. has written the movie "Human Centipede" himself and it is still notable. Only because someone wrote something himself does not make it irrelevant; someone always has to offer an idea and write it before it goes into production.178.4.253.229 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned authors do not normally participate in an AfD discussion. Please log in prior to participation.

Additionally, the discussion is not about whether an idea is relevant or not. His ideas may be interesting yet not notable. The discussion is about whether he is notable. There are specific criteria in Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. There needs to be evidence not of his work, but of the impact that his work has had on other people. The film is not notable in itself and the fact that he wrote the film and performed in it does not make the subject notable. For criteria of a notable film, see Wikipedia Film Notability Guidelines. Please review those criteria and comment on the basis of them. But it's still a delete in my opinion. Nickmalik (talk) 06:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to EiffelStudio. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Eiffel[edit]

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

unreleased software WP:CRYSTAL no indication of notability. Unsourced. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The software IS released in Beta and will be released in production in a matter of just a few days. There is already documentation on the Eiffel.com website as well as the Master's Thesis paper that was written as a result of the tools creation. So, I am suggesting that the notions of "unreleased software" is trivial in the face of imminent release and that the "unsourced" is simply not true for the reasons already stated. Please respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ljr1981 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage of this software. A master's thesis is not considered a reliable source.Dialectric (talk) 12:59, 17 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 ♔ 00:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EiffelStudio: clearly this is WP:TOOSOON manifestation, and I see no policy-based rationale to keep the article. Still, we accidentially recieved neutral and ballanced description of Eiffel-related tool, and given the spotty coverage of topic in Wikipedia I believe we should preserve this material. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:35, 25 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:42, 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. A strict reading of the arguments below calls for delete, but if somebody wants to turn this into a category (as some suggested) and/or merge some information from here into List of Western fiction authors, I don't see anything which would prevent them from doing that. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've stuck out some extemporaneous and extraneous comments of mine per request -- RoySmith (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Contemporary Writers of the American West[edit]

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

This list ought to be a category, if anything. I encourage interested editors to create Category:Contemporary Writers of the American West and add the listed authors to it. Other than that, I really don't know what to do with it. Other editors are welcome to disagree. Jsharpminor (talk) 03:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That's not a valid reason for deletion. If you don't know what to do with it, you don't have to do anything, but hypothetically someone could improve it by adding references, dates, representative novels, geographical areas, etc. WP:CLN says lists and categories aren't exclusive. If you feel that strongly that this should be a category, create it yourself, don't expect somebody else to do the work. Without having references right now, I strongly suspect that contemporary western fiction is a subject that receives study in academic journals and books, and the nomination doesn't seem to question this. The only negative would be whether this would be better merged into a list of all western-themed literature from Fenimore Cooper and Karl May to the present day. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have List of Western fiction authors. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the list. I am happy to convert it to a category, if that is the consensus, and I'm just now figuring out how to link out and in. I was hazy on the difference between list and category when it was created, but now I understand that they are two parallel structures (although Wikipedia does say that both structures are equal). I would make the argument, however, that this should not be merged with Westerns or western-themed literature. There are many writers of the American West/in the American West who do not write Westerns and who do not write what many people would call western-themed work. Their work is about the contemporary West, and if you do a search for them, all you get is writers of Westerns, and so this list fills an important gap. This is similar to the category of Southern writers. I could go into much detail about cultural hegemony of coasts and how the contemporary West keeps getting pushed into the past, as if today doesn't exist, but then I would be a jerk. :-) Guidance is much appreciated. Tlinse (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature#List of Contemporary Writers of the American West. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This seems too vague to be useful, given that it lumps writers from the American West with writers who later moved to the American West with writers who write about the American West. And then it arbitrarily selects "contemporary" writers out of that group...if that is to mean "currently active", then that makes this impossible to meaningfully update short of someone dying (at which point they are removed from the list?). So unless this is a recognized genre and/or literary period (in the way that modern art is, despite the use of a generic-sounding adjective), this is not a proper list subject but instead seems like a made up awkward conglomerate. Converting it into a category would make it worse because the ability to annotate would be lost, as is pretty necessary when there are a range of reasons why an entry is being included in a grouping (a good rule of thumb: if it makes for a bad list, then it tends to make an even worse category).
I also question whether this is worth salvaging, such as by narrowing its focus, given that we already have more targeted lists such as List of Western fiction authors or list sections such as List of people from Texas#Literature. And anyone trying to change this list into something else would have to basically research it from scratch given that none of the included names explain why they are included. I'm leaning towards delete at this point for those reasons. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has the category Writers from New York City. This category is similar to that one - it is a grouping of writers from a geographical area. It is also similar to Category LGBT Writers from Canada in that it is a subgrouping within a geographical area (contemporary). It should not be included with Western (genre), however, because as was said it already has its own category and is not the intent of the list. Tlinse (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet when you created the list, you included people just because they write about the West, and you included people just because they are from the West regardless of whether they write about it or even stayed there. We do have Category:Writers from New York City, but we do not have List of contemporary writers of the American Northeast. Nor do we have any other lists or categories of writers by region rather than by specific states or cities. postdlf (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - So you would advocate for a narrower set of criteria? So if the category was narrowed to only those who live in the American West for a specified amount of time (to be defined), and not those who write about the West, that would be acceptable? Point taken about writers of the Northeast; however, why is there no category: writers of Denver or writers of Phoenix? Would that not be just as legitimate? (In other words, New York City and Chicago are the only cities that have this type of category, and therefore just the lack of other cities having categories does not necessarily disqualify a type of category.) Tlinse (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Category:Writers from Denver, Colorado, Category:Writers from Phoenix, Arizona. Anyway, I question the very purpose of a list that by its nature could only be a broad conglomerate. The Census defines the Western United States as including 13 states, literally just everything west of a certain line from north to south. What's the informational benefit to listing writers from California with those from Hawaii, from Oregon with those from New Mexico, from Utah with those from Alaska? If you'd like to use another definition of the West, then that's your case to make, but in this context I can't see how it won't still be arbitrary, simultaneously duplicative and less focused than the lists by state, and unconnected to what they actually write about (or where in the world they ended up). All of which is probably why we do not have any lists of American people by U.S. region that I'm aware of (which is relevant to the extent there is no established practice to point to). postdlf (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you. I definitely see the problem of where to draw the line. I also, however, see another problem, which is related to literary canon and the legitimization of categories. Perhaps that's not a discussion to take up here. However, I would say that you can do a search on the internet (not necessarily Wikipedia) for "Southern Writers" or "New York City Writers" and come up with a reasonable list. However, if you do a search for "Western Writers" you get only those who write the genre of Westerns. There ought to be a way to fill this gap, and as one of Wikipedia's missions is to reflect current knowledge, it might be a good hole to fill. Or would you suggest an article called "Western Literature" or "Literature of the American West" that goes beyond simply the genre of Western? How might we fill this gap? (Part of Wikipedia content depends on what people define themselves as, and there are a number of writers in the American West who define themselves as writers of the West - see writers organizations - and therefore shouldn't that be represented in some way, if Wikipedia is trying to reflect current knowledge?) Tlinse (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If reliable secondary sources only define writers as "western" based on genre rather than mere place of origin or residence, then that's all we should do as well. I think WP:SYNTH is on point, which is the application of our policy against original research to the specific problem of combining sources to draw conclusions that the sources themselves do not clearly assert. In other words, we can't be the first ones to assert that these writers comprise a meaningful group, such that writers from New Mexico (or their writings) have a relationship or kinship with those from Washington that they don't have with those from Texas. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        There are secondary sources that choose a broader definition: The Western Literature Association http://www.westernlit.org/about/; scholar Thomas Lyon http://www.amazon.com/The-Literary-West-Anthology-Literature/dp/0195124618; Western Writers of America http://westernwriters.org/about/; Nicolas Witschi http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405187336.html; and so on. So we would not be the first to assert the broader definition. This list may not be the ideal form to reflect this (or it might). Perhaps there should be a page called Literature of the American West, much like Southern Literature, that included the genre of Westerns but is much more expansive. Tlinse (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why is geographical qualifier needed? Wouldn't List of Contemporary American Writers make more sense?--Staberinde (talk) 15:39, 28 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has too unwieldy a set of criteria, especially the part about living in the western part of the country. As already noted, contemporary is also tricky. List of Western fiction authors seems sufficient to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's basically a WP:CFORK of List of Western fiction authors. That article should be developed first. It's in bad shape. If we want a "Contemporary" category, create a sortable list with a column for date active. The best way to slice and dice along categories is create sortable lists with columns, it's possible to get a ton of information into a single table without needing to fork off redundant lists that get out of sync. -- GreenC 23:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Vice Ganda. The consensus seems to be to selectively merge material from here to Vice Ganda. Exactly which parts deserve merging is up to the normal editorial discretion of whoever does the merge. Leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Vice Ganda[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Dennis Trillo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Jennylyn Mercado for similar discussions (my deletion rationale is exactly the same as the other two). No prejudice against against a selective merge to Vice Ganda (with sources of course), but honestly this list probably needs to go. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To his main article. Neither page is terribly lengthy and the addition of the awards to the main page wouldn't make the article unusually long. I can't see any major reason why the awards should have their own page. Perhaps if it was some actor who was specifically known for their awards and books were written about how many oscars they had gotten and their speeches and it was such a meme that it deserved its own page, but that's not the case here. The fact alone that he has received awards is not enough reason to have a page separate from the own main article. Bali88 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would have to argue about deleting the said page because I believe that the page should be maintained.

Quotes from: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Dennis Trillo page

"Totally unsourced fancruft-article listing awards and nominations allegedly received by a Filipino celebrity." <-- The article that I created is sourced.
"... except perhaps when the person is really famous...more of these are nomin ation than wins, and unless the award is of great importance, nominations are not necessarily even proper article content." <--Vice Ganda's nomination: 8, wins: 23. "Phenomenal Box-Office Winner at the GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards for three consecutive years + fully sourced.

Also, sooner or later, the list will surely be longer.001Jrm (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you opposed to putting this content on the main biography? Is there a specific reason why you created a separate page just for the awards? I think that's the major thing...It's very unlikely that someone would do a google search just looking for the awards of this person as opposed to looking for a full biography of this person. Do you have any reasons why a merge onto the main article page would be a bad idea? If they get more awards in the future and their awards become a *thing*, the page could always be created again. :-) Bali88 (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I'm not opposed to it. I just think that putting the awards section on a separate page is a good idea to make it look more organized. Therefore, I created a new page plus I added more info about the award-giving bodies with sources. I am just disappointed that after a long time of organizing the info, the page could be deleted. You do know that editing alone takes time. If I do not comment on this, then my work and effort would go to waste. I am just defending my view on this matter, that's all (which is why there's this page, right?). If you still think that the page should be deleted/merged, then I don't have a choice but to surrender. I already reverted my edit and re-added the awards section on the main page (Vice Ganda), and put the awards list to my sandbox as well. I just don't know when will be the *right time* for his awards to become a *thing*. lol XD 001Jrm (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't misunderstand my words, I understand putting a ton of time into something and then someone comes along and deletes it! What I was trying to do (although perhaps I didn't explain this well enough) is help you argue your case. You need to have an argument as to why keeping the page instead of merging would be the best choice. We're discussing the topic here and if you think it should be kept you can and should argue your viewpoint as much as you want. I just wanted you to focus on that aspect in your argument as I think that will be more persuasive to other editors and the closing admin. Most afd's are focused on why the topic is notable enough to be on wikipedia, I think this is a similar, but slightly different situation since the argument should be focused on why it should be on a page separate from the main article. Are the awards of this specific person something that is notable over the awards over other people? Are they discussed more? Are there too many to have on the main page? Personally, I'm not sure that it fits these criteria, but I'm trying to point out the criteria that you need to tackle while arguing your case for the AFD. Also, don't see this as a defeat if it does get deleted. I think the work you put into this will get far more views on the main page anyway. Let me know if you need any help :-) Bali88 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

haha XD Topics like this are making our words seem like we're mad. I didn't misunderstand your words after seeing the smiley face at the end of your paragraph, that's why I put a XD emoticon at the end of mine as well. Anyways, just like what I said earlier, I am just disappointed with the nomination. However, if the team still believes that it should be deleted, I respect their decision. In the first place, I created an independent page for the awards because I think it will be more organized that way. Vice Ganda is really popular right now. See prime of Vice Ganda His films are box-office hits, and he is a trendsetter in the Philippines (eg. popularizes dances...). One way to prove his popularity is through awards, thus I created the page. (eg. ASAP Pop Viewers Awards: nominated 3 times for the "Twittizen" category since 2011, and won in 2013; 3-consecutive time "Phenomenal Star"(major award) winner at the GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards since 2012 + a special award in 2011; consistent recipient of awards and nominations for commedianne/show host of the year category, etc.) I know the page is not fully sourced, but I also need time to rest and do some other things. :)

Again, I respect any decision. 001Jrm (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Also, I know the point of writing a page on wikipedia isn't to get a ton of hits, but if I go to the trouble of creating an article or working on an article I want people to read it! Just keep in mind that if the page does get deleted, your work will get more views there anyway. :-) Bali88 (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time! See you around! ^^ 001Jrm (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect 4 of those awards don't have their own page and should be removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, leaving only 3 tables. Near not enough for it's own page, the main article should just have a section for this. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'll need a redirect, but I accept your decision. :) 001Jrm (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The redirect is generally required after a merge to preserve attribution of the contributions to the merged content, for GPL compliance. — Gwalla | Talk 02:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All non notable awards ~~from a non notable person!.~~ →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 03:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I have to argue that there are also notable awards (including, but not limited to, GMMSF Box-Office Entertainment Awards and PMPC Star Awards for TV) in the list. Also, the person himself, Vice Ganda, is a notable person (trendsetter; lead of multiple box-office films in the Philippines; Philippine's most popular comedian: [6]; Top Philippine influential person on Twitter: [7] and so on). I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but I'm actually a little bit offended by the way you say your sentence. (Using all and an exclamation point afterwards). Try to at least look at some of the awards and/or the person before you generalize things. Hopefully, I would not sound rude by my way of saying it because it's not my intention to be one in the first place. Thank you. :) 001Jrm (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO most of the awards are not notable, ~~I'm not sure how I can offend anyone by my sentence structure ? .. Thats baffled me,~~ .... Anyway If I've really offended you then I apologize sincerely :) →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your sincerity and it's probably how I interpreted your comment that I was offended in the first place. Anyway, I respect your decision (er...or opinion?) in this matter and I accept my mistake for adding some non-notable awards (that I've copied from the main page) into the article. See you around! ^^ 001Jrm (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah now I feel bad as I wasn't aware you created it, Well I apologize If I had offended you and Good luck on future article creations. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:52, 28 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively to Vice Ganda. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Ondessonk[edit]

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

No evidence of notability Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of evidence is needed to prove notability?Jamie (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominator appears to be going through a list or category of summer camps and nominating them all for deletion, indiscriminately. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surprise Lake Camp for example, where a summer camp that really obviously meets wp:GNG is also nominated for deletion. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Kawanhee for Boys, where I also vote Keep and have added some relatively easily available references. I assume wp:BEFORE standard is not met here, either, for this Camp Ondessonk article. --doncram 19:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC) --doncram 21:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I trust that whoever closes this AfD will take into account your partisan canvassing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - My same response to Pigsongthewing's identical statement in similar AFDs: Absolute nonsense. Please do try to explain where there was any "canvassing" at all. In several AFDs on summer camps that Pigsonthewings has nominated, i have pointed to other ongoing AFDs about summer camps, pointing out some relatedness between the AFDs. This seems appropriate, there is no canvassing to user pages or to any Wikiprojects. Nonsense. --do ncr am 00:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep I'm finding a lot of coverage in Google Books. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 31 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 04:02, 21 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this seems to be a fairly well known summer camp, based on web presence and Google Books hits, enough to pass GNG I think. The page needs to be seriously trimmed though, it seriously fails WP:NOTGUIDE and nearly every source given is WP:SELFPUB'd. Ivanvector (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete THe problem basically is the inability to write an article which isn't all from camp publications. The current version would need a WP:TNT application for that, and looking around I'm not finding independent sources that say enough to allow an article to be written. Mangoe (talk) 18:40, 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 merge to Donetsk National Medical University. In this short discussion the weak consensus (per limited participation) is to merge. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Donetsk State Medical University[edit]

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

Duplicate of Donetsk National Medical University E Wing (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both articles are rather terribly written, but although they have similar names, they may be two different universities. They have separate official websites. Am I missing something? Mz7 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They both have the same Cyrillic title which translates to "Donetsk National Medical University", have the same Rector, same established year, and as per the Internet Wayback Machine's archive of the http://donetsknmu.com/ website as of 7 February 2011 it is named as Donetsk National Medical University (and also referred as "DNMU" on that website's current iteration). After a bit of digging from both websites it also shows the exact same university logos (albeit with a very minor color difference) and the exact same university façade. Furthermore as per the WHO/AVICENNA medical universities list, the school is listed as Donetsk National Medical University of Maxim Gorky with the DSMU name possibly a former name of the university.E Wing (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Studyukraine might be a promotion-only account based on his username and contributions. And the http://donetsknmu.com/ site seems to be catering/inviting international students to study in Ukraine. E Wing (talk) 19:38, 28 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Donetsk National Medical University. This article seems like an essay and based on the analysis above they are the same institution. Ivanvector (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Donetsk National Medical University per Ivanvector. This article is in very bad shape. United States Man (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Coldplay discography. Without prejudice to reconsideration of inclusion of material at Trouble (Coldplay song) and/or retargeting the redirect, based on standard editorial processes j⚛e decker ^talk 17:24, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble – Norwegian Live EP[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Non-notable release. — Status (talk · contribs) 12:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable album, (It'd also help if you bundled these as It would save me having to paste this 15 times :) ). →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 02:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 13 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trouble (Coldplay song) where it's already mentioned. Peter James (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but the EP has four other songs on it besides "Trouble". I think a merge to Coldplay discography would be more in order. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nowhere in the discography for the date and location of recording to go, or the track listing. Peter James (talk) 20:41, 31 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Coldplay discography, where the EP is presently covered. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 31 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 19:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Grow[edit]

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

I can't find evidence of notability for this film. The London Independent Film Festival reports that one actress in the film won the festival's Best Actor award[8], but otherwise there's no independent, substantial coverage in reliable sources that I can find using Google. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable. Also nominate Same World, Different Day under the same criteria. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

film, not plantfood:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

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

Delete for failing WP:NF. I went ahead and prettied it up a bit under MOS:FILM but was not able to find it spoken about in reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There just isn't anything out there to really show that it passes notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 31 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 primary arguments are that most reliable secondary sources for demonstrating notability of the subject arise from an event, not the person, and that the person is otherwise a low-profile individual. Furthermore, it appears that the subject is explicitly requesting deletion of the page, with more support than opposition to doing so being provided in response. Thus, defaulting to delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Denham[edit]

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

As discussed on Talk, Denham does not appear to be the subject of multiple, in-depth, reliable sources, or at least there are none that I have been able to find. Citations 1-11 are all primary sources, self-published sources, or others (the WSJ link appears to be a forum of some kind). The only reliably-sourced content is about a controversy at CareFusion where he was one of the involved parties as the company's CEO, however he was not the subject of those articles, but is only mentioned in a couple sentences. The controversy is better-covered on the company page. CorporateM (Talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that this article should be deleted, but instead should be fully cited and restored to a version consistent with others BLPs on Wikipedia. On May 20, 2014, a great deal of relevant and factual information was removed. Much of it was cited. Some of it could be better cited, and I would like to provide those sources, both primary and secondary. Charles Denham is an important public figure with over 30 years of documented work in healthcare and innovation, and he deserves to have an accurate Wikipedia page that reflects this. Removal of awards and honors while highlighting a controversy is unbalanced, and it is not in the spirit of Wikipedia being an encyclopedic source. I think we can come to an agreement about the best way to portray his many accomplishments with cited material.

I propose that we consider a fully referenced, balanced WP:BLP consistent with other BLPs of people of similar prominence in public and on Wikipedia. I would like to create a fully cited version of a proposed biography and post it in this talk page for discussion - or should that proposed version go on the Charels Denham talk page page - getting consensus before it is posted. I think this is a more reasonable approach than continuing to edit the Wikipedia page, going back and forth, leading to a disjointed page with errors and non sequiturs.

Dr. Denham has been unable to respond to some of the recent changes to his page since he was blocked from the page because his name was the same as the article, and he had to go through the process of verifying his identity, and he was out of the country for a period of time. Now that he is verified, he would like to come to consensus on the issue. Let me know if this is the appropriate venue for the discussion. TMIT Curator (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)TMIT Curator[reply]

This is the appropriate place to make such arguments, though you should disclose your COI here in the discussion string, rather than just on your userpage, to make sure the person closing the discussion is aware. Primary sources are allowed in certain circumstances, but not for awards, nor to validate that he meets the requirements for an article. If you would like to see the article kept, the best way to make your argument is to provide credible, independent sources like journals, the press, etc. that offer some depth of information about his background and are not written by him. Though you would like to see consensus result in keeping the article, you should keep in mind it may not necessarily go that way if no secondary sources are found. CorporateM (Talk) 22:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting, TMIT Curator. If Wikipedia guidelines seem confusing to you then ask here, or if you want other opinions, anyone at WP:TEAHOUSE can direct you to as much assistance as you would like and of any sort you like. Should TMIT ever take interest in improving general articles on health on Wikipedia then please visit WikiProject Medicine for support and guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The following sources establish that the subject of this article meets WP:GNG and WP:BIO. I disagree with CorporateM's assessment that Denham was not the subject of the Department of Justice-related articles and that he features only in a few sentences in them. Under WP:ACADEMIC this person meets criteria 7 ("one of the country’s most visible advocates for patient safety" - ProPublica) and 8 ("Dr. Charles Denham Named Editor of Journal of Patient Safety").

Sources about that Department of Justice issue -

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs (9 January 2014). "CareFusion to Pay the Government $40.1 Million to Resolve Allegations That Include More Than $11 Million in Kickbacks to One Doctor". United States Department of Justice. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
Allen, Marshall (28 January 2014). "Hidden Financial Ties Rattle Top Health Quality Group - ProPublica". ProPublica. Retrieved 13 April 2014.
Johnson, Brian (29 January 2014). "NEJM reviews ChloraPrep study in patient safety controversy". massdevice.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
Sullivan, Thomas (11 February 2014). "CareFusion Settlement Features Corporate Regulatory Officer as Whistle Blower, Implicating High Profile Physicians". policymed.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
~~Wachter, Bob (30 January 2014). "Patient Safety's First Scandal: The Sad Case of Chuck Denham, CareFusion, and the NQF | Wachter's World". community.the-hospitalist.org. Retrieved 22 May 2014.~~
~~Kell, John (9 January 2014). "CareFusion to Pay $40.1 Million to Settle Kickback Allegations". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 19 January 2014.~~
~~Stempel, Jonathan (9 January 2014). "CareFusion to pay $40 million to settle U.S. kickbacks lawsuit". reuters.com. Reuters. Retrieved 19 January 2014.~~

Other sources which generally establish WP:GNG just by reporting various actions by being about the subject of this article but only reporting minor events are as follows:

Oh, Jaimie (8 March 2011). "Patient Safety Expert Dr. Charles Denham on Patient Safety: Learn Global, Act Local, Be Vocal". beckersasc.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
~~Holliday, Regina (8 December 2010). "Regina Holliday's Medical Advocacy Blog: Praying with Chuck Denham". reginaholliday.blogspot.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.~~
Chase, Katie Johnston (6 April 2011). "Harvard program helps retired leaders shift gears - The Boston Globe". The Boston Globe. Boston: NYTC|. ISSN 0743-1791. Retrieved 22 May 2014.

Here are reviews of Denham's documentaries, which are described as his works and should be presented in this article.

Landro, Laura (27 April 2012). "Aviation Is an Inspiration for Improving Patient Safety - Health Blog - WSJ". blogs.wsj.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
The Emily Jerry Foundation (18 April 2012). "Discovery Channel to air "Surfing the Healthcare Tsunami: Bring Your Best Board" on April 28th Featuring Initial Interview Between Christopher Jerry and Eric Cropp". emilyjerryfoundation.org. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
Landro, Laura (22 April 2010). "Patient Safety: The Movie - Health Blog - WSJ". blogs.wsj.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.
~~Levy, Paul (5 February 2014). "Not Running a Hospital: Product placement on steroids". runningahospital.blogspot.com. Retrieved 22 May 2014.~~

Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many of these sources are primary sources, blogs, brief mentions or areas where Denham is merely quoted as a spokesperson, but this looks like a proper source and says he is "one of the country’s most visible advocates for patient safety." We still don't have enough strong sources to make a proper and robust article, but since his notability is confirmed a 2-3 paragraph stub may be appropriate.CorporateM (Talk) 00:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CorporateM I thoughtfully selected all of these sources and excluded others that I did not like. I would ask that anyone who questions any of them speak up. The blogs here conform to WP:SPS, there are no primary sources (other than his being named as a journal editor, which is elsewhere reported by third-party sources), and all of these feature Denham beyond mentions or being a spokesperson. The force of Denham's personal character or work is the subject of all of these works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my mind - a WSJ and Reuters articles are only mentions. I struck them out. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you go to mention it conforms to wp:sps, I feel the need to mention that wp:BLPSPS would also be at play in this situation.I'd also mention that there seems to be a question of notability above. I don't feel that you can make a case of notability with SPS.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had not considered or even known about BLPSPS. Thanks for sharing. I crossed out the blogs which do not comply with WP:BLPSPS. Please let me know if I missed any, or if you think other sources should be removed from consideration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't remove the question of notability. I really haven't looked indepth here but the majority of what I'm seeing is ties to that carefusion scandal. I don't know if scandal is right word because they DOJ took a settlement. Carefusion may or may have have whatever. I think it could be argued that which is being claimed for the sake of notability really only amounts to a matter of short term interest. I'm not going to go through each source but above, SGGH, is saying that little to no secondary sources are used in the article. Secondary sources really make the case for notability. Their absence in the article wouldn't be a cause for deletion, that's if they do exist. With the evidence as stands now I kind of feel that I would have no choice but to vote for deletion but I'll withhold my vote for the time being.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ (changing to Delete, see below) The only significant coverage he has gotten from independent sources is about a medical kickback case, in which he was only peripherally named and nothing against him was ever formally alleged or charged. Partly for BLP reasons I don't feel this shaky coverage is enough to establish a notability claim. But he does not seem to have gotten coverage for his other activities, and IMO he fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage. That leaves WP:ACADEMIC, where he might have a weak case for notability. He has published numerous articles, and their citation rates are respectable but probably not enough to meet the ACADEMIC criterion. He also served as editor of the Journal of Patient Safety but that probably doesn't qualify as a "major" journal. ~~BTW since User:TMIT Curator (to whom I am going to suggest a change in username) has expressed an interest in improving the article, it could be userfied to them if deleted.~~ (Oops, too late - they have been blocked for username reasons.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An enormous amount of energy and time has been put into highlighting the Controversy content while at the same time diminishing the value of Dr. Denham’s 30 years of accomplishments. The process was set off by an undeclared and conflicted competitor. The current formulation of the page does not deliver the encyclopedic value to Wikipedia and magnifies negative content of citations riddled with errors. Therefore, I believe it may serve Wikipedia and Dr. Denham to delete the page all together. Patientadvocate3000 (talk) 00:18, 29 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the subject of the page in question, I would like to respectfully submit my request that the page be deleted. WP:BIODEL states "Deletion discussions concerning biographies of living persons who are relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus to keep, may be closed as 'delete' per the deletion policy." Charles Denham (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this person meets WP:GNG then I would not want the page deleted only for WP:BIODEL. The subject of this article was a leading player in his field, ("one of the country’s most visible advocates for patient safety" - ProPublica, and just days ago in this deletion discussion, the staffperson at his organization wrote "Charles Denham is an important public figure with over 30 years of documented work". I think that BIODEL should be a separate discussion from AfD. First the subject of this article should be judged as meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or not, then if AfD keeps the article, there can be a second evaluation about how notable this person is. There are some sources which say that the subject of the article is known, public, and visible, which I feel counter the BIODEL criteria that subjects be "unknown, non-public figures". Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI accounts will basically vote in whatever way they feel is strategic to them at-the-time. However I disagree that we need more bureaucracy by creating separate discussions. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE specifically says that a request for deletion by the BLP effects how an AfD should be closed and therefore this is the proper place for them to register a request. However, if the article is kept, I think just a stub of 1-2 paragraphs would do with the bulk of the controversy content on the company page. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I am incorrect about the usual procedure for following BIODEL. Both discussions can happen here as requested. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been deeply troubled and until today, very confused by the intense and relentless actions that Blue Rasberry has taken to edit my bio page in his is role as a Wikipedian. Now I understand it. This pattern of behavior started in January when he began making dramatic edits to my bio page with Richard I. Cook. MD, who also had a significant and undeclared COI until it was exposed on my article talk page. Again, I request that my bio page be taken down or else it will continue to be used to damage me by those who have a clear COI. Blue Rasberry has made 14 significant edits, submitted commentary of more than 3,700 words, and has persistently deleted positive facts in my bio. This included making negative content an entire category called CONTROVERSY while deleting positive accomplishments. The citations he uses to discredit me are blogs that are riddled with errors and have clear contradictions, even from the sources they cite (which have been clarified on the on my article talk page.) Today, I found on Blue Raspberry’s User Page that he is a paid contractor for Consumer Reports which generates and sells consumer access to a hospital scorecard that directly competes with ones I have helped support through my philanthropy and expertise. Further, according to his user page, Blue Rasberry has worked on projects with business partners with whom we have had a business relationships, such as Choosing Wisely. This behavior is in clear violation of WP:COI. When I looked on the CareFusion company page today, I found Blue Rasberry has added the same issue multiple times, put it in the lede, and created a new section header making it unduly prominent, just as he did on my page. The information is inaccurate, redundant, and again defamatory to me mentioning my name twice. I respectfully submit that my page be removed from Wikipedia. The behaviors played out on my article talk page and the numerous edits to my page are not in the spirit of the wonderful principles upon which Wikipedia is founded and seeks to embody. WP:BLP are not intended to be used for journalistic debates or to discredit people who cannot defend themselves because they can’t edit their own pages and cannot get the truth out in secondary sources. Nor, as I understand it, is Wikipedia to be used for competitive business advantage by those with undeclared conflicts of interest. It appears from the dialog that the only person who wants to preserve the page has a conflict of interest. Please delete my page and honor the principles of Wikipedia. Charles Denham (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I made a post at the conflict of interest noticeboard that you made a COI claim against me. I am leaving this discussion now and will not edit anything related to the subject of this article or any news related to Denham again anywhere on Wikipedia, but am available elsewhere to talk about any conduct issues including COI that anyone wishes to address. I deny having any reason to believe that I could receive favor from my employer for editing this article, except that in general my employer hired me because I am a Wikipedian with my own opinions independent of them and can speak and act according to my own interests. I also deny doing defamatory editing, but COI is a tricky concept and no one can see how it manifests from one's own self so it might be true.

I have no knowledge of any competing products or direct relationship between my employment and this issue. I have personal and professional interest in the health advocacy sector, which is why I care about news in this field and why I have a history of editing in this space. Nothing good can come of my staying here and I trust the Wikipedia community to follow process from here out, and that everyone knows where to find me. Please leave me out of this case, but please also do not neglect to contact me if I can resolve any concerns in another way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one that copy/pasted the material to the company page, which is the right place for it. However, I just used "the CEO" which is how we normally handle these issues where it is not of value to the reader to name the person (this format is debateable here). However, I see now a very UNDUE emphasis on it in the Lead. I will fix it now. Regarding the COI accusations, that is a lot of dots to connect, but it does seem Blue has a strong opinion, which may be effected by his background and affiliations, but I doubt his motives are corrupted per se. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above I !voted "weak delete" on notability grounds; the additional discussion on this page convinces me that the article should be deleted. (However, I would respectfully suggest to Dr. Denham that he should probably not complain about conflict of interest, since this article was originally written, later edited, and strongly defended here by users who are admittedly affiliated with TMIT.) --MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not a public person enough to compel a strong case for having an article, so I think we should follow his wishes and delete the article. People deserve consideration of their privacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 5 June 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.

Sorry for posting here. I just made a stub article for National Quality Forum having forgotten that there is a Denham connection to that organization. NQF is a major national player in health politics and I made their stub as I was listing organizations to populate Health_care_quality#Organizations_in_the_United_States. Sorry, now I am stepping away from that stub too. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miniscule of Sound[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Blatant advertising The Banner talk 22:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've greatly cleaned it up, mostly because there was an assertion of notability there via the Guinness record. They're no longer the record holders, and that seems to be their main/only assertion of notability. Everything is pretty much a brief mention of the club going to various places ([9]) and there's not really any in-depth coverage. I'm probably going to vote for a delete, but I'll try looking a little longer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If they were still the record holders then I might have argued for some notability, but they aren't and there really isn't any in-depth coverage out there. It's pretty much a few trivial mentions about it being taken to various places (not as an exhibit, but as it being carted to different festivals) and one or two mentions about the GWR stuff while they still held it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their notability doesn't vanish when they lose the record, that's recentism in the extreme. There even seems some doubt as to whether Rumours which is the current GWR holder is still on the road or whether it was just a one-night stand. Fascinating topic, lots of room for expansion (current article doesn't even say how big it is... it's 4' by 8' according to one of the refs... how 14 people fit in, a photo would be good...). Andrewa (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that a subject had to be currently holding the title in order to qualify? I'm basing this mostly on AfDs where people have been deleted for holding the record of oldest person in a specific area, but were deleted or redirected to a main article for former record holders. There's also been precedent for others who held Guinness records either currently or previously. The general gist of the deletions is that the record can count towards notability but isn't really enough for complete notability in and of itself. The articles that have been kept were usually kept because there was a lot of coverage in general about the subject, either for the record setting or in general. (example) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only keeps I'm finding for current record holders are from AfDs from 2005/2006, which were done back before the more stringent rules came about. Part of the biggest argument against Guinness records is that over the years Guinness has gone from maybe a few thousand records to over 40,000 records. I'm not sure how many they have now, so we can't entirely say that a world record holds the same weight that it would have in the past, at least not for the concept of absolute notability. Some notability, sure, but not absolute notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... this article also gives me cause for concern about the large number of record holders, as Guinness will apparently help people come up with various record breaking activities for a fee. They still have to accomplish the feat, but this kind of puts a bit of a tarnish on any of the records that would not otherwise receive coverage in other sources for other reasons. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 16 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, Guerillero | My Talk 03:22, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand why you are trying to delete the wikipedia entry for Miniscule Of Sound? As an interactive piece ov performance art and installation it is most certainly of note. As a music venue alone it is of further note. It has been imitated and plagiarised around the world because of its popularity and originality and unique qualities but it is the original version of the Worlds Smallest Nightclub idea and a can still be found in operation on a regular basis which cannot be said for its (often poor) imitators . . It has, as mentioned, been pushed from the current Guinness Book Of Records for the moment but the replacement entry really doesnt operate with the longevity and consistency of the actual Miniscule and was of course purely conceived as a copy of the smallest nightclub idea in the first place. I spoke with the editor of GBR and he said the Miniscule club would be re-listed in the future. The Miniscule has been taken to China by The British Council to represent innovation in British culture and design, it has been filmed by the BBC and featured in broadcast and print media around the world from TV and Radio to being used in theatrical performance (Keith Allen & Damian Hirst) to coffeee table books (worlds best bars etc) ,

It regularly appears as a feature of prestige arts events such as Fuji Rock festival in Japan and Glastonbury Festival in UK among numerous other events, it is listed regularly as one of the worlds top 10 unique nightspots, it has also turned down offers of appearing in the U.S., Singapore, New Zealand and a heap ov other places, it was originally devised as an artistic installation in London Fields Lido while it was a squatted site and relates therefore to the architecture and history of recent east london especially with its recent gentrification and changes,

it was used at the D and AD awards because of its relevence,

it has featured on the Guinness book of records TV show in the UK, it has had numerous well known guests and DJ's, its very popular unique and fun! - it seems pretty petty to try and remove it because it is not of cultural relevance to yourself, surely the site should be about finding information about things you dont already know about . . . If TokyoGirl would like to see who and what The Miniscule Of Sound actually is then feel free to visit at Fuji Rock Festival 2014 in her home nation of Japan where the club and artists involved will be flown to and employed once again at the expense of the promoters in July this year for around the 5th consecutive year, a point ov noteworthyness in itself . It is one of a kind apart from people who have copied the idea from The Miniscules popularity and all that jazz .. . . So i obviously VOTE TO KEEP THE ENTRY for Miniscule Of Sound - please put the entry back to the way it was, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmaru (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am happy to work on a re-write on this article to make it more in line with wiki article protocols. I'd ask editors to keep the entry for a period of time to allow a re-write. I'd note reasons for inclusion: (1) equivalent groups also represented in wikipedia as articles (other theatre and performance groups), there is a precedent for theatre groups having an article in wikipedia (2) longevity: the group has been continuously active for 16 years performing publicly; (3) notability: the group has generated media publicity, public funding for its activities (e.g. representing British cultural activities in China, funded by the British Council) and imitators. mgaved (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The big problem with this is that it all boils down to coverage- which just isn't out there. I've also found where there are thousands upon thousands of entries for Guinness records. There are at least 40,000 records in the GBoWR database, meaning that setting a record isn't really something that would give absolute notability. As far as previous AfDs have gone, we only tend to keep articles if the subject has received a lot of coverage and/or set a LOT of other records in other capacities that would count towards notability. Holding a GBoWR doesn't really hold the notability it used to, especially since they started charging money to help people come up with ideas to set records. (You still have to try to set the record, but that they'll come up with something within your capacity means that it's not exactly overly difficult or strenuous to set a record as it used to be.) As far as it showing in various places, the thing about that is that it has to be the main or one of the biggest main focal points of the exhibition or at least have tons of in-depth coverage about it showing at various places. There are trivial mentions, but nothing in-depth. As far as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the existence of other articles or even copycat booths does not really mean much because ultimately the existence of other articles doesn't have any weight on this article and copycats really only count towards notability if you can show a lot of coverage in RS that has the people saying that they were copying the MoS. The long and short of this is that there just isn't any coverage out there. There are brief trivial references and routine notifications of events, but the only actual in-depth source we have is one news article from the area it originally opened in. That's really, really not enough to show an absolute keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear Tokyogirl, please give me time to edit. I am disappointed you've deleted my first edits on the article within 24 hours of my work on trying to improve the article. I would agree with your argument that 'having a Guinness World record at some point' is probably not strong enough value for a wikipedia article. I note that there are several articles in wikipedia on theatre groups, some of which are amateur, so it would appear that this is a valid category of article. I will keep working on this article over the next 7 days or so: could you hold from deleting my edits for a short period of time to enable me to improve this article? Thanks! mgaved (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion time isn't really up to me, but to the admin that looks at this next. It was relisted on the 30th and another admin will look at this in a day or two (since it's been 7 days since then) and decide based on the arguments on either side and based upon the strength of the sources in the article. Right now the biggest thing is that you really, REALLY need to find coverage in reliable sources about the MoS. I have no problem with it being kept if you can find these sources, but we need those to show notability. As far as reversing edits goes, I won't mess with them, but I can't guarantee that they won't be reverted by another editor. So far the current additions to the article don't seem to pose any big issue as far as neutrality goes but the biggest issue still remains with coverage. eFestivals wouldn't be considered a reliable source per WP:RS and most would consider Fujirock Express to be a blog/WP:SPS. The SMH source is good and if you can find more along those lines, it'd be very helpful. Also, if you are able to ask any current newspapers or other RS to write an article about the MoS, that could help as well. You'd have to go about this carefully since they would still have to be in places that'd be usable as a reliable source, but if you can get someone to write about the club on say, Pitchfork or one of the staffers at Rolling Stone, that would definitely go a very long way towards showing a depth of coverage. It'd have to be in-depth and more than just a brief mention, though. I know that's easier said than done, but there's nothing that says that you can't reach out to media outlets in search of more coverage. (Just steer clear of the places such as iCNN, which we can't accept as a RS because they have no editorial oversight we can verify.) There's a bit more to this, but those are the basics. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is sad to see that it is again turned into a promo-piece. In this state, it does not fit in an encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 10:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice TokyoGirl. I am unsure about soliciting reviews from journalists as a means of justifying the existence of the article, so I'll look over what prior coverage the Miniscule of Sound has received and add in links where I can find them. You suggested two USA based music magazines (Pitchfork and Rolling Stone): as Miniscule of Sound is a UK based group I think it would probably be more appropriate to draw on UK based media in the first instance, then go more global after this. You'll see I've made a link to an article from DJ Mag as a starter, and The Guardian Newspaper. Some of these are not online articles, but I don't think wikipedia requires its sources to be online? (please correct me here). In some cases I can point at articles which have been written but I am not sure are live online. regards, 137.108.145.40 (talk) 13:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't, but we do have to be able to verify them in some manner to ensure that they aren't trivial mentions or just routine :notifications of events. As far as country-based media goes, don't discount the US based places. Pitchfork and Rolling Stone's websites are read globally, so they will be far reaching and they're often writing about music related stuff in other countries. The DJ Mag source would be good as long as we can verify how long it is and so on (but it looks like it's at least a few paragraphs long per the title), as would be the Guardian story if it's not a brief/trivial/routine notification sort of deal. Hmm... this might be a good thing to WP:USERFY while sources get dug up if the AfD closes as delete. We're definitely heading in the right direction for sourcing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 15:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jason baguio[edit]

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

The Boston Business Journal reference in the article is promising, but other than that I couldn't find more reliable coverage. It doesn't help that "Jason Baguio" is a surprisingly common name. If someone else finds more reliable coverage other than those already in the article, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This person is only notable in the context of Social Seam, a Groupon-like site he created. The few sources available about this person discuss him solely in the context of Social Seam. This provides support for the notability of Social Seam, but not for Jason Baguio. Fails WP:BIO. Note that the speedy deletion template (WP:CSD#A7) was removed by the page creator. Mz7 (talk) 20:11, 14 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:02, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaila Scott[edit]

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

Radio personality of exclusively local "single station in a single market" notability, with no particularly strong evidence of notability that would pass WP:NMEDIA. Every single source here is weak or invalid for one reason or another: #1 and #4 are both entirely dead links, #2 mentions her name a single time in passing within an article that's otherwise about the radio station (thus failing to be substantive coverage of her), #3 sources a fact about the radio station she worked for without even mentioning her name at all (thus also failing to be any sort of coverage of her), #5 and #6 are both primary sources that cannot validly demonstrate notability, and #7 just links to an index of Billboard articles without even offering the slightest clue as to which article in that index might even possibly have anything whatsoever to do with her. In addition, the article has been directly edited in the past by User:Shailascottwbls — obvious WP:COI. No prejudice against future recreation if someone can create a properly written article that cites good sources which are substantively about her, but is not entitled to keep this. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As presented, I would have to lean toward delete on this one. The article is a puff-piece and could/would likely be speedy-deleted for unambiguous promotion. I agree that the sources provided are only casual mentions of the subject, and do not demonstrate the "significant coverage" of the GNG. If this AfD is in danger of being closed, I'd ask for a relisting so we can get other eyes on it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 15 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:03, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:23, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Currie[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an actor with no strong claim of notability that would meet WP:NACTOR — his IMDB profile reveals, in fact, that even the roles that would appear to be his most notable (Battlestar Galactica and Stargate SG-1) were themselves minor walk-on roles of the "one or two episodes" variety (and even in the only role in which he got more than two episodes, his character was still so minor that he had a number instead of a name.) And the only "references" that the article has ever contained at all were his IMDB profile and an interview on a Stargate fansite — neither of which are valid reliable sources for a Wikipedia article, and since he's been almost exclusively a bit part actor to date I can confirm that Google offers up exactly squat for better sourcing. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I remember him as Fifth in Stargate: SG-11, but that was in just a few episodes in a short story arc. None of his other credits are enough to satisfy NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:23, 17 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:03, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 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 no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harima Sake Culture Tourism[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 18:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article equivalent to the Kentucky Bourbon Trail. Recent parentage, evidently made by a Japanese Wikipedia user, but still salvageable. Jun Kayama 12:55, 15 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:07, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 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 redirect to Rough Cutt. Without prejudice to retargeting the redirect j⚛e decker ^talk 19:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hager[edit]

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

Article is about a guitarist, cited to a webpage created by wikipedia content. I can't see any great claims to notability, other than playing guitar for a short time in the 1970’s for an unknown band and for another unknown band for 2 years in the 1980’s. This seems to be a personal profile, littered with unsourced personal details and fluff about Hager. Very little found on Google Search, nothing from Highbeam. Pr8593 (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Lack of press attention; not a solo musician or one who's made a significant contribution to music. Although he has played with multiple (probably) notable acts I don't think he meets WP:MUSBIO #6 "a reasonably-prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles" because he left Ratt before they changed their name to Ratt, and played with Stephen Pearcy for only a short time. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 16 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:07, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 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 No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational Romania[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG with most links related or social media The Banner talk 21:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 15 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unwilling procedural keep - despite my reservations about beauty pageants in general, the Miss Supranational pageant seems to be notable, and if we delete this one, then we need to consider deletion for ALL the other links for individual country participants in Template:MissSupranationalCountries. This is one particular weed where we're tackling a single feeble root out of dozens. Mabalu (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that... if Miss Supranational (which seems ton have very weak sourcing) itself gets deleted, then all the roots can probably be killed off en masse too. Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 27 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 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 keep. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Naomi Remen[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. None of the online references are independent sources. The first few pages of hits from a Google search include: clearly non-independent sources such as www.rachelremen.com, this Wikipedia article, Facebook, Twitter, pages on web sites selling her books, clearly promotional pages, and web pages written by (not about) Rachel Naomi Remen, but there is nothing that could be regarded as an independent reliable source.

That leaves as a possible independent source the one book cited, "A Life in Medicine: A Literary Anthology". According to Google books, "A Life in Medicine collects stories, poems, and essays by and for those in the healing profession, who are struggling to keep up with the science while staying true to the humanitarian goals at the heart of their work. Organized around the central themes of altruism, knowledge, skill, and duty, the book includes contributions from well-known authors, doctors, nurses, practitioners, and patients." That does not suggest an independent source. The book is listed at http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/54752.Rachel_Naomi_Remen, a page headed "Books by Rachel Naomi Remen", which suggests that she may be a contributor to the book, rather than being written about in it. Excerpts from the book are visible as a Google preview. Unfortunately, the page cited in the article (page 91) is excluded from the preview, but page 92 is visible, and contains nothing connected with her, so the content by or about her cannot be very extensive; it can scarcely be substantial enough on its own to demonstrate notability, even if it is about her, rather than by her.

(A PROD on the article was contested nearly a year ago by an IP editor.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is promotional. As SAS81 (talk · contribs) should tell you, no self-described "pioneer" of "integrative medicine" (that is the integration of quackery/pseudomedicine with medicine (otherwise known as medicine)) is not exactly academically WP:MAINSTREAM, although money is there to be made if you're willing to allow your own cognitive biases to take control. Since, if you're making money selling snake oil to cancer patients you can't be wrong can you? Fails WP:PROF. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The New York times piece by Bornstein (added as a ref) seems to me substantiate the claim that her The Healer's Art stuff is used in medical schools throughout the US. (This ref [10] also supports this). This page The National Library of Medicine (NLM), Changing the face of medecine: Celebrating America's Women Physicians - Dr Rachel Naomi Remen also seems useful. These and the popularity of her popular books would seem enough to me for notability. I am against quackery/pseudomedicine of which there is a lot about but some of the being nice to patients and trying to make them happy stuff is often lumped in with that which I think is unfortunate. Rewriting to remove worries would seem better than deleting to me. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:43, 23 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. though the current article may be overly promotional, she is a significant academic figure and published author from a major press, with multiple reprints, and how is an official government site not an appropriate source: the National Library of Medicine says "Dr. Remen is clinical professor of family and community medicine at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine, where she is also Director of the innovative UCSF course, "The Healer's Art." She is director of the Institute for the Study of Health and Illness, which she founded in 1993, a professional development program for graduate physicians. She is the author of two widely read books Kitchen Table Wisdom: Stories That Heal, published in 1996, and My Grandfather's Blessings: Stories of Strength, Refuge and Belonging, published in 2000.". Any discussion of quackery can be just thrown out, right now. I am professionally aware that her (and similar) ideas are absolutely used in medicine today (i cant say whether she created them or just promoted them, though). I am also professionally aware of her popularity as a writer. yes, 2 different fields, though i know my own direct observations dont qualify her. overall, enough refs show notability. clean up may be required. There is also this bio from a presumably unbiased website, which indicates her CV nicely: [11]Mercurywoodrose (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known author with reliable sourcing per AUTHOR. -- GreenC 00:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Author of a NY Times bestseller => notable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 00:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Earth Slovenia[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG as most sources are related or social media. The Banner talk 21:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pageant seems to be notable enough to be reported on the national TV's web portal - [12], I also found reports by 24ur.com and Siol.net (major private media networks in the country, although less respectable). Not sure about COI, but I think at least notability criteria are met. — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- About the COI: the author removed the AfD and maintenance templates on all three pageants I nominated yesterday. And with a quick Google you can see that the main author shares a name with the organising company. The Banner talk 08:25, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  If you think that COI provides a ground for deletion, you should change the proposal accordingly. — Yerpo ^Eh? 08:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mentioned the COI here... The Banner talk 19:59, 22 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,

Salvio

^{Let's talk about it!} 09:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unwilling procedural keep - (copied over from the other Miss Earth nomination, as it is relevant to this one too) As with Miss Supranational, we need to bear in mind all the similar links on this pageant's related template, Template:MissEarthCountries. This is a tiny root, not the actual weed itself. Miss Earth is clearly shown to be notable in its main article, so would never get deleted at AFD, but merging all the participant's sub-articles from the template to Miss Earth would make that page unwieldly and overlong. So I think this page is harmless enough as an offshoot of a more notable page. Mabalu (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bundle by continent? The Banner talk 18:04, 27 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:14, 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. There is sufficient concern about the content to warrant deletion of the current article content, but I don't believe there's consensus here to prevent recreation of an otherwise policy-complaint article j⚛e decker ^talk 19:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Verne Harnish[edit]

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

Non notable founder of non notable organization. He wrote for Fortune, and they give him an award. His major book is in only 161 libraries worldwide according to worldcat,which is trivial for a popular book on small business.

Everything here is puffery, starting with "world-renowned" in the first sentence. See adjacent AfD for his organization "Entrepreneurs Organization" DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looks like someone very successfully weaved his organization and other entrepreneurs together with numerous articles. I am new to voting at AfD so I guess I will pose a question as this one is not obvious to me. Would subject pass WP:AUTHOR under criterion 3 as his book Mastering the Rockefeller Habits, even though not in many libraries, has been regarded as a go-to source for the business community? [13], [14], [15]. I agree about the article puffery, but trying to judge the sources before gutting the article down to simply being an author, not the founder of a world-renowned business organization.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. In response to CNMall41's question, no its not enough to be quoted in articles. Coverage has to be about the subject. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revising to weak keep. I did some cleanup to remove advertorial content and the Forbes book review noted below is substantial. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Struck !vote above of blocked sock puppet, per WP:SOCKHELP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems to be a melange of copyvio (from his Amazon author page ) and some other content. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Multiple of his books are translated into other languages: http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=Verne+Harnish&dblist=638&fq=+%28x0%3Abook-+OR+%28x0%3Abook+x4%3Adigital%29%29+%3E+ap%3A%22harnish%2C+verne%22&qt=facet_ap%3A (e.g. Japanese version "Fortune The Greatest Business Decisions of All Time". The book, Mastering the Rockefeller Comments, appears notable in its own right: translated into Spanish, Chinese, Russian, others (see e.g. http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=su%3ARockefeller%2C+John+D.+%28John+Davison%29%2C+1839-1937.+au%3Averne&qt=results_page ). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And before I forget I also dug up book reviews for "Mastering The Rockefeller Habits" in Forbes & Entrepreneur magazine Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes review looks legit although it covers the book and not the individual. The second source is really just a passing mention. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, the book appears notable. Contrary to one of the nomination reasons: "His major book is in only 161 libraries worldwide according to worldcat,which is trivial for a popular book on small business." (btw, where do those holdings numbers appear in WorldCat). Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 07:05, 18 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:06, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 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 merge to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Uruguay, London[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. all the article states is its address. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now, and COMMENT / REQUEST: Hey, there are a bunch of London embassy articles created in last six months or so, linked from navigation template {{Diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom}}. The Afghanistan one went up for AFD previously, now Uruguay one. Many of these are stubs and they should be developed further. Many are located in historically notable buildings, whose historic status will establish notability as I know has been done for various embassies in Washington, D.C., USA that were put up for AFD and eventually kept. The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Afghanistan, London was that the article was moved to more fundamentally needed article Afghanistan–United Kingdom relations. Possibly others should be similarly moved. How about an organized cleanup drive based from somewhere appropriate, Wikipedia:WikiProject England(?), rather than embark on a bunch of AFDs which drag in persons who need not be concerned. AFD is not for cleanup. Many of these are going to be notable. Where to proceed, instead of here? If we can find some host to a cleanup drive, would the nominator withdraw this? --do ncr am 01:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Many of these are going to be notable" is quite a claim from you. Some have been deleted or redirected. This is an opportune time to test notability. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i rather expect many embassies in London will have chosen suitable buildings that happen to be historic and notable on their own, as has happened for embassies in Washington, D.C., and i don't know how many should likely be moved to a relations-type alternative title, and some will be completely well-enough covered by general references to meet wp:GNG, and so on. Let's not "test" them all at AFD. --do ncr am 02:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create them, LibStar, in case that is what you are assuming. I just came upon this at AFD, and I searched and found the Afghanistan one's AFD. And I happen to have worked previously on editing some U.S. historic site articles on buildings in D.C. that became embassies, and one or two were AFD'd and Kept, if I recall correctly. --do ncr am 02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At a minimum, merging into a new section in United Kingdom–Uruguay relations, and redirecting, would be superior to deleting. That would be compatible with decision on Afghanistan one. I voted "Keep" for now, above. --doncram 02:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations seems like an entirely sensible option. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:33, 14 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - would all these borderline notable embassy stubs warrant creation of a List of foreign embassies in London? Ivanvector (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is a similar List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations - either the institution or the building needs to be notable. Neither is. Some embassies in London will be notable in their own right (like the Ecuadorean one) and others will be notable for being in notable buildings. Those likely won't be nominated for deletion. But those likely weren't created in the last 6 months as part of this silly diplomati-spam effort. Wikipedia is not a directory for non-notable diplomatic missions. Stalwart111 13:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a totally unremarkable building, no coverage likely independant of relations between the two countries. And no content worth merging into United Kingdom–Uruguay relations.TheLongTone (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Kingdom–Uruguay relations. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We have a list article dealing with UK Ambassadors to Uruguay. We ought to have a similar list article for Ambassadors to UK. Every diplomatic mission should be notable. The building is no doubt unremarkable, but what goes on in it is certainly notable, as should be every ambassador who should be listed in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

embassies are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested. Just realized I didn't actually !vote on this. Ivanvector (talk) 21:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Williams (baseball)[edit]

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

WP:NOTINHERITED. Williams did nothing notable. Clearly fails WP:GNG. ...William 10:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Alcor controversy was notable. Probably was BLP1E though. Undecided at the moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTINHERITED is not applicable here because the subject has received coverage for his own actions and certainly substantial coverage way beyond what the typical child of a baseball player - even a Hall of Fame baseball player - achieves. And I don't understand the basis for the comment in the nomination that he "clearly fails WP:GNG," since the subject has been covered in numerous articles. Many of those involved the Alcor controversy, so WP:BLP1E could be argued, but I don't see any of the specific elements of BLP1E actually applying here, let alone all of them. In particular, with respect to criterion 1, there are reliable sources covering other aspects of the subject, such as his abortive baseball career, his business dealings and his death, for example, [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] (some of these of course touch his his Alcor role, which was his most prominent claim to fame, but also address the other topics). With respect to criterion 2, he was not a "low profile" individual. And with respect to #3, his role in Alcor was substantial. On #3 one might argue that the Alcor controversy was not significant enough - although it generated substantial press coverage - but even if he fails #3, BLP1E would require failing all three criteria, not just one of them. Rlendog (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but perhaps rename as he really is not notable for his baseball career so a different disamb would probably be appropriate.Spanneraol (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for meeting WP:GNG. There are many sources dedicated just to him.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ~~WP:MLB/N seems to indicate all Major League Baseball players are notable, and~~ the Alcor thing gets him through WP:GNG. I should point out that I came here expecting to be a voice for deletion.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 14:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He was never a Major League Baseball player. Spanneraol (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I misread the article.♥ «Charles A. L.» (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Dinsdale[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate who sought office, but was defeated. Though 22 sources are cited, I believe he fails WP:GNG due to the poor quality of many of the sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to have gotten quite a lot of attention in national media, see http://atr.rollcall.com/is-sid-dinsdale-the-next-deb-fischer-in-nebraska/?dcz= , http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/377838/why-conservatives-have-well-founded-doubts-about-sid-dinsdale-jim-geraghty , http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/us/politics/conservative-pick-set-to-win-gop-primary-in-nebraska.html?hpw&rref=politics&_r=0 . There are a few hits for him in google books as well, from his role in banking sector. --Soman (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep when looking for sources I found there were plenty of on-line newspapers with whole articles on him. |There is no shortage of reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:34, 15 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not qualify for an article just for being a candidate in an election — if you cannot make a strong and credible case that he was already notable enough for other things to have an article before he became a candidate, then he does not become notable enough for a Wikipedia article until the election is over and he's been confirmed as its winner. Routine coverage of the election itself is not sufficient to get him over the bar in the interim — and furthermore, in its current form the article is relying far too much on primary sources rather than reliable ones. Delete, or redirect to the article on the election; no prejudice against recreation if and only if he wins the election. Bearcat (talk) 02:33, 27 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 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 no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Icarus (Interstellar Probe Design Study)[edit]

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

Non notable project. 1 RSish link, the rest all self published. Article created by member of group (per his comment on article talk) Gaijin42 (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we're only a few months away from the project's estimated completion date, I'd rather see us have this conversation after that few months has passed. If the project generates significant media coverage at that time it can be improved upon. If it doesn't, it should be deleted. — Gopher65_talk 00:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blakeredfield (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Project Icarus ran a starship design competition in 2013 which generated research options for interstellar flight capable vehicles. These design studies are summarized here: http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/project-icarus-workshop-winner-announced-andreas-heins-ghost-future-plans/. Given there are only a handful of serious researchers studying interstellar flight and that this design competition alone doubled the number of studies for such vehicles, their work is both of scientific value and beneficial to directing education in astronomy, astrophysics and spacecraft design. ie, what these guys are doing has value, as does its presence on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakeredfield (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inplus1691 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC) For disclosure I am a member of the Project Icarus team and Icarus Interstellar (and new to wikipedia editing). This worldwide project team of over 30 people is voluntary and our research continues although the target date for completion of the end of this year is at risk (at least there are no cost overruns!). The project has been regularly written about in Spaceflight magazine and contributes peer reviewed papers to the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society a respected and leading journal in the field (details being added to the main wiki page now). We are developing teams at various universities such as Drexel University in the USA and the Technical University of Munich and have worked with others on MSc Projects related to our work (eg Rutgers, USA). In fact we've been so busy we have not been updating the Wiki pages although I am advised we should be careful about doing so anyway. Some searching by independent editors should hopefully reveal a litany of references to Project Icarus which would support keeping this page. Inplus1691 (talk) 11:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of sources about this project and Icarus Interstellar to the Icarus Interstellar AfD page. Mgilster (talk) 23:40, 20 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. search on just Project Icarus gets more hits. There are news reports including Project Icarus and a foundation giving United Airlines a sustainability award! Seems notable, big-scale project, a non-profit, what's not to like. --do ncr am 01:51, 25 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from potentially conflicted member: At this moment I would count MSNBC as RS and the 3 BIS references as secondary sources as well. The BIS is closely involved but has independent peer journals. Further, though I have not reviewed them, the sheer number and domain quality of Mgilster's sources linked above have a good likelihood of providing significant support. So I'd be a keep, and I think the two self-identified volunteers above can be relied to find additional reliable independent content even if all the known sources don't pan out. All we need is enough independent Wikipedians to put the fixes through. Frieda Beamy (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Icarus Interstellar article and noted many sources on the Icarus Interstellar AfD page, some of which apply to Project Icarus specifically. I am leaving on vacation for most of June, so I ask that we keep the Project Icarus (Interstellar Probe Design Study) page for now until I or others can improve it. Mgilster (talk) 22:31, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MinuteMenCreatives[edit]

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

Fewer than 1000 hits on Google, entirely promotional. James^x12345 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to have no evidence of notability, ultimately fails the general notability guideline with no substantial coverage. Tutelary (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 23 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Reads like blatant advertisement. GethN7 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Network-based rating models in sports[edit]

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

This seems more like a literature review than a proper article. The notability of this subject isn't established by third-party sources, and none of these rating models are used by leagues or the media. The only references are the three research papers that the article is summarizing plus a fourth research paper cited in one of the three. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the topic has merit and so should be rewritten rather than deleted entirely — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.186.250 (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 23 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Betz[edit]

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

This is another BLP PROD that has expired where I think some discussion needs to take place. The article was CSD'd originally but that was declined. I'm just passing through, but I think we need to discuss whether this subject would pass GNG and whether it would be a good candidate for Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron rather than outright deletion? I know I'm perhaps not following normal channels, though. Apologies! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:22, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 27 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone takes enough interest to source this properly by the close of the AfD. The awards mentioned by the article may be enough for notability but without sources it fails WP:BLPPROD. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 2 June 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 both --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aviel Gabai[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 23 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aviel Gabai - meets WP:GNG with media coverage [22] [23] Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - players who have not played in a fully professional league nor senior international football so fail WP:NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements partnering significant reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG either. Links to coverage above are to articles of minimal length. No indication of significant coverage of either player. Fenix down (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Fenix down. Meeting GNG is not established in either case. C 679 09:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop (band)[edit]

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

Article was previously deleted in 2005 and recreated in 2007. Band still fails WP:MUSICBIO; band is non-notable and has not released any albums on any major labels. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. jonkerz ♠talk 13:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to be found, just one album review. All albums are self-published. The claim that they played Woodstock '99 cannot be substantiated: they are not listed in the official band lineup (even for the "Emerging Artists Stage"). — Gwalla | Talk 18:21, 23 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources for the article at all. It could be invented out of whole cloth for all we can tell. I was unable to find any mention in an internet search that would indicate any of the notability criteria were met. Seems like self promotion to me. Nickmalik (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For reasons mentioned above. SilentDan297 talk 18:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primeval: New Dawn[edit]

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

The article in question, Primeval: New Dawn, has absolutely no sources to back up any of its claims. The only thing I can actually find relating to it is a YouTube video that looks like it was made in Window Movie Maker. Therefore, I nominate this article for deletion, as I believe it does not meet WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS or WP:NOT. Please discuss below. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 07:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 02:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 30. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:40, 30 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) 13:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the clincher: An indiegogo campaign to fund the development of the game will launch on July 19, 2014. Wow, so not only is this an unreleased indie game with no press, the funding campaign isn't even launched yet. Definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON.

From the history, this used to be about a Belgian-British fan film. When one makes a promotional Wikipedia page, one should at least make up their mind what's being promoted. Possible hoax?-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just found this: I'm going to make a movie - and if succesful, a game - about Primeval! It is going to be released in 2015. I live in Belgium, and I'm a massive fan of Primeval. That's why I'm going to make a movie and if succesful, also a game. Help me. Help me keep the show alive. Not a hoax, just an overly enthusiastic fan.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:HAMMERTIME. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 20:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porter Matthews Metro[edit]

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

seems to be spam, although author has fixed it a bit. Hg andVenus 05:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the grounds of the subject being non-notable. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the company is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject. Given the user name of the author of the article I would question whether this is just self-promotion of the company by an employee. Dan arndt (talk) 03:49, 6 June 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. Number 5 7 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bailey Road School, Auckland[edit]

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

Primary (year 0-8) school. We don't usually keep stand-alone articles of such schools, absent unusual coverage which I do not see here. Epeefleche (talk) 05:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 05:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Does not meet WP:NSCHOOL/WP:GNG. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete primary schools are not inherently notable. LibStar (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Libertarian Party (United States). Note: There is precedent for delete and redirect as an outcome in some situations, but its use is limited by precedent to deeply problematic content (copyvio, BLP), and no argument is made that the content is so problematic that it can't stay in the history. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Party of Puerto Rico[edit]

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

No references since creation in October 2012 & no indication of notability. – S. Rich (talk) 03:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 06:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Libertarian Party (United States). Community consensus has held that state branches of political parties do not inherit the notability of the national party, where the bar for inclusion is generally pretty low, and these sorts of articles are very often deleted when they land in AfD. Which is to say that the state branches need to establish some notability of their own. In many cases small third parties don't even have ballot access. One key sign of notability is whether or not the state party has managed to actually get anyone elected to a state level office. The Libertarian Party is the largest of the third parties in the United States and they actually have won some local and state offices. But I am unable to find any claim of that in Puerto Rico. Nor does the dearth of reliable source coverage help the case for this article. I am willing to reconsider my !vote if any evidence of independent notability for this state/territorial branch can be found. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by OP – I have included their website on the page infobox, but agree with Ad Orientem that a redirect is the best way to go. With this in mind, I'll wait a few days to see what other views there are. Depending on what we get, I may withdraw this as a speedy close. At which point I'll do a WP:BLAR on the article. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such thing as delete and redirect, it is one or the other. Do not redirect this; there is quite rightly nothing about this one-person party in the target article, even though there is coverage of its one potentially popular but irrevocably doomed agenda: independence for Puerto Rico. LPPR only uses independence as a chance to Obama-bash in any case. There is no indepth coverage for the party itself. None. Slam. Dunk. I ask that someone please keep an eye on the Frank Worley title to make sure that no one makes an article of that. This sole spokesman for the party has gotten some coverage, but in only nineteen Google hits. No reliable sources out of any of them. Not much independence from the subject, either. Anarchangel (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary when deleting local and state branches of political parties to redirect them to the national party's article provided there is one. Also, and I don't want to sound snippy here, but AfD discussions are not an appropriate forum for political editorializing. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. j⚛e decker ^talk 20:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nutri Ventures – The Quest for the 7 Kingdoms[edit]

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

Whole article is written like an advertisement. Badger2424 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I always found this article very questionable; digging into the YouTube pages of the series, it is available through Hulu Plus and the VOD service Kabillion (along with them being mass-uploaded by the creator to said YT page), but there's no TV presence to be found and judging from the tendency of American children's networks to stick with in-house product, it won't ever be found. The show itself really has no notability outside of being a fleeting attempt to provide E/I content. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am finding some stuff, but so far this is pretty spammy. The best I've found so far is that they partnered up with Partnership for a Healthier America to show episodes in classrooms. Most of what I'm finding are press releases like these two sources. This might be redirectable to Hulu programming, if we have such a list. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was my thinking as well. There may be some use of this article being on Wikipedia, but it should be completely rewritten. Badger2424 (talk) 04:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment. First, note that I couldn't care less if this gets deleted or promoted to featured article status (well, I'd be more likely to delete than to promote) Second, yes, I am portuguese, but I have never eared of this before. The comment is: How is this different from the gazillions of TV series that have articles? Sometimes, many-times, articles per episode! (and yes I am aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I guess that "not popular in the US" is not a good argument either, is it? :) This has at least one strong reference in the media: Nutri Ventures encontra-se com Michelle Obama (Nutri Ventures meets Michelle Obama), Expresso (Portuguese newspaper) is one of the main Portuguese newspapers, the show made the news there, some people from the team met Michelle Obama, and it is (according to the reference) aired in 23 countries. I think we have awaaay too many TV series' articles, but I can't figure why, by WP's standards, this is to be deleted. - Nabla (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. That proves its notable if a major newspaper is giving it significant coverage. If you can search for news sources in other languages, that'd help convince everyone. Dream Focus 16:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I 'found' it in the article. Also there, is another one: Nutri Ventures entra nas escolas primárias norte-americanas?? (Nutri Ventures gets into North-American primary schools), from Público (Portugal), another main Portuguese newspaper (which I read regularly), says it is the only foreign company to have a partnership with Obama's Partnership for a Healthier America (but note that Portuguese media sometimes get over-excited with some small Portuguese company doing well abroad). PS: just checked a automated translation of both articles, and they are not-bad enough to be understandable in English. - Nabla (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though its just a press release, look at the information presented. [24] "NUTRI VENTURES: THE QUEST FOR THE 7 KINGDOMS has become one of the top 20 series on Hulu Kids in its first two weeks of release, building a strong U.S. audience as it continues to attract new viewers around the world." It then list how popular it was in other nations. So surely health magazines and others will have articles about it. Using the manga anime reliable sources custom Google search, I get plenty of results, including Animation (magazine)[25] and others. Dream Focus 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, this TV is well known enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, but I think it would be best to start over. There is very little in the current article that is truly worth using (it's basically an advertisement), and it would probably take more effort to fix than to start over and make a worthy article. Thanks! Badger2424 (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Its always easier to rewrite sections that need it, than to start over from scratch. I'll see what I can do. Dream Focus 20:19, 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:59, 20 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 ♔ 02:50, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voofa[edit]

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

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not seeing any coverage in RS, though as his work is in Hindi maybe we should expect English-language sources to be sparse. GoldenRing (talk) 11:29, 15 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, j⚛e decker ^talk 06:51, 22 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 ♔ 02:49, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bajju Rajput[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a subcaste. No evidence of notability or significance. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 17:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 23 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 ♔ 02:48, 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FileHold Systems[edit]

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

Prod declined by the creator. My original concern was "This company seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (companies)" and it still stands, despite few new sources added. I don't think that the presented coverage is sufficient (Yahoo source is a repost from " GetApp _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 16 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 ♔ 04:27, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given sources are a mixture of primary and partner firm PR. Neither these nor anything else located through multiple searches (Highbeam, Questia, Google) indicates that the firm meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slow Made[edit]

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

Non-notable movement, has no sufficient coverage in reliable sources and therefore, no inherent notability. Fails the general notability guideline. Tutelary (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions OccultZone (Talk) 06:02, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE j⚛e decker ^talk 18:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nay Riachy[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography. Fails WP:ANYBIO. - Mr X 18:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 18:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 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 keep. The discussion appeared to reflect the idea that new references added before the first relist were sufficient to evidence notability. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coloradd[edit]

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

This may be intrinsically important, but it doesn't seem to be yet notable DGG ( talk ) 18:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding sources that demonstrate notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources that show notability.--Theredproject (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a number of (independent) references: [26]. Won in the accessibility category at the 2013 Vodafone mobility awards, has been described by several accessibility organizations. Article appears to have been translated from the Portuguese, where this appears to be widely-enough deployed to be reasonably well-known. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PS, for the record, "-Colorado" was instrumental in searching for this one.Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:10, 27 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - recently added references seem to demonstrate notability.Eustachiusz (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Source examples include [27], [28], [29]. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 31 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 18:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erie Meyer[edit]

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

A week ago, 151.200.253.16 added the AfD template and added the following text to the talk page: "This person does not meet the notability requirements. Near as I can tell this person started a mailing list for female technologists. There are lots of these". Note that I merely create the page and have no idea about the notability of the article. Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 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, Mz7 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to achieve notability. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. one source is primary, the other source is more about the company and the forbes source potentially but not indepth. LibStar (talk) 05:55, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Atterberry[edit]

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

Player does not meet the requirements for notability in American football Rowsdower960 (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ///EuroCarGT 00:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Jakejr (talk) 04:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and has no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 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, since the article hardly asserted importance and nothing else has been put forward. Tikiwont (talk) 10:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi[edit]

No sources. Very short article that does not signify importance. It does not say what "national" services he writes for. Does not meet WP:BIO. Metal Head (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources and nothing to establish notability. --L. Pistachio (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2008 (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.