Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 November	14 November >

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. postdlf (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of casinos in Alaska[edit]

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

As the article itself states, there is no such thing as a casino in Alaska. Bingo and Pull-tabs are not casino games. There are bingo halls all over the state, and pull-tabs are available in almost every bar in addition to the shops for those who prefer not to patronize bars. All of these types of gambling give their proceeds to non-profit organizations.

In short, none of these places could be reasonably defined as a casino, so what we have here is an entirely unsourced article about a subject that does not actually exist. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as the nominator says, it's a list of things that couldn't conceivably meet any selection criteria that the name of the list implies. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:18, 14 November 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. Sandstein 20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Adams (poet and business coach)[edit]

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

Subject does not meet GNG and the article is, at best, promotional with unsourced vignettes: "...after receiving a poem his daughter wrote him for his birthday which he said 'knocked me out'." EBY (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of notability; few references; the book that is listed turns out to be a compendium of short descriptions of coaching techniques, therefore most likely does not have any substantial information on the subject of the article nor his techniques. LaMona (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw this nomination. (non-admin closure) --Biblio worm 19:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thermomix[edit]

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

No sources, almost certainly non-notable, and borderline promotional. Biblio worm 22:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - WP:BEFORE. News.com.au, Sydney Morning Herald, Yahoo7 Lifestyle, A Current Affair, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail UK, SmartCompany, Illawara Mercury, Financial Review, The Age, Focus Germany, Choice Magazine 1 and 2, Daily Mail 2 and 3, Consumer New Zealand, Daily Telegraph again, Globe and Mail. A google books search shows literally hundreds of recipe books see here. JTdale ^Talk 23:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these are a huge deal in Australia where they have a bizarre cult following. There's plenty of coverage to go along with it -

This from Australia's leading consumer advocacy group.
This about the launch of a new version.
This about the award they got for the way they launched it.
This about the same thing.

At the moment, the vast majority of the "news" coverage is focused on that recent "scandal" but there are plenty of reviews and whole independent cookbooks dedicated to cooking with this device alone. Nom is not wrong about the article, though - needs a lot of work. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Strong keep: several sources, notable worldwide. Please see sources on the articles in other languages. Peter17 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I apparently messed this one up pretty badly, so perhaps we should just close this AfD as snow keep? --Biblio worm 21:38, 14 November 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.

Luxembourg Leaks[edit]

The result was Snow close as keep, hugely notable news event in Europe. The AfD nomination describes the scandal, but doesn't indicate why the topic wouldn't be article-worthy or why the whole page needed deletion instead of editing. Please don't nominate articles for AfD without a good reason to delete them. Fram (talk) 08:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page seems to be designed to promote a single website based on shaming businesses for normal business practices where no specific civil or criminal conduct is indictaed. Synthetic defamatory implications were made by providing a list of companies and the name of a non-notable private individual against whom no charges have been leveled, as well as naming the former PM of Luxembourg (now EU president) as having "been in office" during the time described. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - currently an ITN suggestion with support. Also the websites purpose doesnt change the articles notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The information about a prominent public office-holder, the EU president and former Luxembourg PM, is in the public domain and is certainly notable. As a responsible office-holder, and former office-holder, he is in a position to answer publicly, and can decide whether or not, and how and when, to do so. The list which had been removed from the article is not required there, but can be found elsewhere by anyone interested. To suppress the information altogther would itself be a POV-ish act. Qexigator (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But if kept the name may need changing by reference to the information, not to a purportedly "proper name". Talk:Luxembourg Leaks#Name and attribution --Qexigator (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep -Go google it. This is such a big deal the G20 is about to deal with it. JTdale ^Talk 23:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is widely covered on many serious (WP:RS) news sites. Edwardx (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saying that "no specific civil or criminal conduct is indictaed" makes the event described by the article unnotable is absurd. An event's notability is not described by its legality; should be delete the article on slavery in the US because is was legal? Also saying all this exists just to "promote a single website" represents a to me incomprehensible lack of judgement and failure to google. Thue (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see every indication that this article is notable. Google it as it's been said. Perhaps there's reason to suggest that a list of companies isn't included if the allegations are unproven as suggested by the proposer, but then that's not n AFD issue.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ the page exists merely to mirror a blog listing unfounded and defamatory allegations with no documentation given. This is born out by Admin (!) Thue's restoring a list of businesses which are alleged to have "shady" dealings according to the source. If the article is to be kept, it has to be about the business's and official reaction to the leaks, not promoting a POV and implying criminality where none has even been alleged. As to notability, there was just a major scandal about celebrity nude photos being hacked. Would an article listing these celebrities as a whole be appropriate. The article needs oversight at the very least, with no company being mentioned unless it is subject to charges or it comments itself on the allegations. μηδείς (talk) 03:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate vote. μηδείς as the nominator you have already cast a vote.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep As a matter of fact the claim “This page seems to be designed to promote a single website” is false. I added information on the collaborative approach by leading media organizations from around the world to the article. -- Neudabei (talk) 08:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I nominated the article for Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#November_13. I consider this here a tactical move to keep it off the main page for as long as possible (until it's off the news). But take your time if necessary: It will be on the news for a long time. -- Neudabei (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. i think news coverage has made the lemma highly important. and, of course, viceVersa. Maximilian (talk) 08:40, 14 November 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. Consensus is to keep, at this time. Further conversation about possible merger can continue in the appropriate place. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

McGrawville, New York[edit]

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

This information should be located in the town of New Hudson article. This small hamlet does not need its own article; absolutely no apparent notability. ɱ (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 22:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Populated places of all sizes are considered notable as part of Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer (and by long-standing AfD precedent). The community could probably be merged into the town article (and a local historian says it doesn't exist anymore) but that's not really a discussion for AfD. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is if merging involves no actual moving of content and instead merely doing away with this article.--ɱ (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with The Catalyst31. I would be open to a merger provided the reference TheCatalyst31 wss added on. Also what about changing the classification of McGrawville from a hamlet to that of a ghost town. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a ghost town? The Neva Gross local historian reference says there are just a few old barns there now, sounds like not a ghost town. --do ncr am 23:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Unless there is some information added, this is better redirected, probably to New Hudson, New York#Communities and locations in New Hudson. If/when sources establishing separate notability, and enough length to need a separate article, the redirect could be revised to be an article again. Better to redirect, keeping edit history at the redirect. --do ncr am 23:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.--ɱ (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now I have added to the article, based on Catalyst31's reference: "According to a local historian, the settlement grew as a village around a saw mill, and at one time included "a store, cheese factory, blacksmith shop, and ten or twelve dwellings" including tenement houses for workers on a stockraising farm, and a boarding house. It was the location of a U.S. Post Office for more than 50 years, from 1849 through about 1900.^[1]

^ Neva Gross, New Hudson Town Historian. "McGrawville". Rootsweb. Retrieved 2014-11-17.

So now maybe there is enough to keep something here. Notability is not temporary; a former settlement can be covered. I could accept keeping or merging & redirecting. --do ncr am 23:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty good find, but it's still small enough to warrant merging and redirecting.--ɱ (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hundreds of references to McGrawville in old newspapers when I searched Newspapers.com. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mere references doesn't make an article notable/worth keeping, it is still far too short for its own article, and well short enough to just be a mere paragraph in the town's article.--ɱ (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:MusikAnimal per CSD#G12. (non-admin closure) Everymorning talk to me 23:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rathin Sinha[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). Eurodyne (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A-7. A businessman, one of millions, with zero claim to encyclopedic notability. Sources severely fail WP:RS.. CSD tag applied. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:14, 13 November 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. Unanimous consensus that the book meets notability guidelines (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UNIX Network Programming[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK edit: or more importantly WP:TEXTBOOKS EoRdE6 (talk) 19:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The talk page has links to 7 pages on college websites showing that the text is used as required by WP:NBOOK criterion #4. For your convenience here they are again... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Bazj (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 20:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:TEXTBOOKS which clearly states For these reasons, most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field.EoRdE6 (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TEXTBOOKS also says "and whether it is, or has been, taught, or required reading, in one or more reputable educational institutions." which is more than satisfied by the links I gave. Please read the whole section rather than quoting selectively. Bazj (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bazj (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book seems to be notable in some way. I reckon that this is a base article that can be improved. Keep per above. DSCrowned^(talk) 21:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bazj. If the book is required reading at a number of universities it satisfies WP:TEXTBOOKS. James500 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as WP:A7, WP:G11. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline7[edit]

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

New web service, no evidence of notability, possible COI. Dougweller (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of this service besides their own website. Fails WP:GNG Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A-7 and G-11. Utterly non-notable company. This is pure WP:SPAM. CSD tag applied. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G11/G12) by Jimfbleak. . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Adanja-Polak[edit]

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

A BLP with no sources. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced resume per WP:PROMO. Subject fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP and WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of boilerplate argument is that? Subject certainly doesn't "fail" WP:GNG, as even a casual google:Mira Adanja-Polak demonstrates. Likewise, the subject does not "fail" WP:V, the article does. How about some basic WP:BEFORE? No such user (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...having said the above, speedy delete as copyright violation of http://www.adanja-polak.com/en/homepage/ . There is apparently no salvageable version in history, as even the first is a copyvio of http://www.adanja-polak.com/en/broadcasts/. Add to that promotional tone, it's a poster child for WP:TNT. No such user (talk) 11:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 November 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 03:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoxico, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORP and reads like an advertisement. This article should never have made it out of AfC, and appears to have been approved/moved to mainspace by someone misusing the script. Seahorseruler ^{(Talk Page) (Contribs)} 05:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment None of the sources given, aside from patents (which do not establish notability), mention Hypoxico at all, so as is the article does not meet GNG or CORP. I tried to find a few sources, the best I come up with is [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (a press release). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:26, 12 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability. Sources often make no reference at all to the subject of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero reliable secondary sources (patents are primary and no, Fox Sports doesn't count as reliable). Bearian (talk) 22:18, 17 November 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 03:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Nation Branding Forum[edit]

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

Advertising forthcoming event Graham Beards (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

The event its organized by a nonprofit organization, and although the topic of the event is nation branding and it aim to promote countries and their businesses. There is no "commercial offering" on the event whatsoever, is free and open to anyone, this is stated in the webpage. It could not be classified as advertising, according to the wikipedia description either"...to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering".

Thanks

--Teamdulwich (talk) 15:18, 6 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G-11. This is unambiguous promotion. The lack of "commercial offering" is neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - WP:SPAM applies to non-profits as well as commercial businesses. Wikipedia itself is a not-for-profit, not a public entity; we are under no obligation to host conference news. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - G11... tagged. Peterborough Street (talk) 20:46, 20 November 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 03:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark D. Yates[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, recreation of a earlier deleted promo piece. But this one is not much better, mostly sourced on related sources (his own book, his own Linkedin-publications etc.) The Banner talk 13:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't see any notability here, but I don't follow military articles. It seems to be mostly about a single event that it was decided he had not participated in. In any case, I merged and imiproved the existing references. LaMona (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No evidence of notability beyond the single court case. See BLP1E. Article is highly promotional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination, subject lacks "significant coverage" in WP:RS per the WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:20, 15 November 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 02:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Moskvin[edit]

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

I was almost going to PROD this, but this BBC source gives off the impression that there are more sources out there. The only problem is that I cannot find anything to suggest that Moskvin is really known for anything other than his gruesome habit of digging up bodies and dressing them up for display around his house. Granted there may be more coverage in Russian, which is why I've listed this at AfD as opposed to PROD- I'm hoping that if other language sources are available that prove that he's notable, they can be provided. I just really get the impression that the guy was only covered once or twice and while he was known in academic circles, that did not really translate into coverage in RS that would show notability. I know that there's at least one non-grave robbing source out there, a 2007 newspaper interview, but I do not speak, read, or write Russian and as such can't really find anything to this extent. It really seems that he's only known for his grave robbing, which would be a BLP issue since the event has not received any true further coverage past the event itself and it's not major enough to warrant inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:11, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything that rings the notability bell in a Google. With respect to his morbid hobby that would seem to fall under WP:BLP1E. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, couldn't locate any other sources. Fails BLP section 1E Peterborough Street (talk) 20:47, 20 November 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 Pagan Wanderer Lu. j⚛e decker ^talk 02:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection R.I.P.[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pagan Wanderer Lu per lack of RS coverage. Everymorning talk to me 18:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to . Nothing found to suggest this album meets the notability guidelines; a redirect to the artistes article satisfies the recommendations at WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pagan Wanderer Lu though I note that the artist's claim to notability looks pretty dicey to me as well. But that's another subject. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 13 November 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. Can always become a redirect if the underlying artist survives AfD. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent Scrutineer[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 17:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pagan Wanderer Lu. Nothing found to suggest this album meets the notability guidelines; a redirect to the artistes article satisfies the recommendations at WP:NALBUM. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I'm now changing my !vote to delete; Pagan Wanderer Lu is up for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pagan Wanderer Lu. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dylanfromthenorth. On a side note, the artist's claim to notability seems dicey to me as well. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable album of a non-notable artist/musician. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:32, 21 November 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 02:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OnionMail.info[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (et al.). I can't find any reliable sources about it at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to OnionMail. The current title is the project's website (http://en.onionmail.info/). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis for the nomination is at WP:GNG. Could you explain how that could be applied? (basically for an article to exist on wikipedia it must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sadly no evidence of notability. Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Wikicology (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Have to agree here. Some .onion sites are notable but this one comes nowhere near meeting WP:GNG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 15 November 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. Sandstein 20:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postulatism[edit]

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

Term doesn't appear in Google Scholar nor JSTOR, possible hoax. Notability questionable even if it isn't. Created seven years ago by an SPA. A couple blind hits... just a couple, in Google Books. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This hovers somewhere between WP:OR, WP:MADEUP, and redundant to a whole host of -isms that factor in the problem of proving facts about the world or communicating knowledge or knowing something for certain... (see relativism, subjectivism, perspectivism, brain in a vat, solipsism...). Also, fails GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable fringey idea. Bearian (talk) 22:21, 17 November 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 Bible translations into the languages of Africa. Bible translations into the languages of Africa (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ndandililo ni Kutyoka[edit]

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

This is an awkward AFD as I can't find any notes about the notability standard for biblical translations. As a book, this translation doesn't appear to meet the standard of WP:NBOOK, however. Mikeblas (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bible translations into the languages of Africa. JTdale ^Talk 23:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a good choice here, for an existing but poorly sourced translation of the Good Book. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 17 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Surinder Sharma Shastri[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. The references contain little or no mention of him; one of them says he prayed before a business meeting, others don't say anything about him. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails all relevant notability guidelines due to lack of coverage in secondary reliable sources. If the assertion in the article is true, I have no objection to redirecting to Hindu Heritage Centre. - Location (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to connect Shastri with the Hindu Heritage Centre in any significant fashion. Despite many newspaper articles having been written about the HHC, Shastri is not in them. Binksternet (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for you considerations and concerns, I believe Acharya Surinder Sharma Shastri deserves a spot in wikipedia because he is one of the most prominent hindu priests in Canada. As for sources, I do have newspaper articles that have cited information about him and as for the bhasker panchang there are not really any secondary sources available. However bhasker panchang helps calculate all the auspicious dates that come under the hindu calendar and as a result he is responsible for calculating the hindu festival dates for the government calendars. If there is any other ways of sourcing information please let me know, Thanks

18:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Delete Founding a religious institution that passes notability requirements is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above there are not really any secondary sources available. Reliable secondary sources are required to establish notability. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a source from the public library and newspaper here http://news.ourontario.ca/1449262/data?n=1 and another here http://news.ourontario.ca/1540477/data?n=1

Here is another news article connecting acharya surinder sharma to the hindu heritage centre aswell as showing his notability as we can see him with members of the ontario legislative including the premier http://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/3117035-premier-joins-hindu-celebration/

Here is Acharya surinder sharma shastri being mentioned in the legislative assembly (his name was misspelled acharya surender sharma shastri in this transcript of the legislative assembly) http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/house-proceedings/house_detail.do?Date=2011-05-10&Parl=39&Sess=2&locale=en

We can see the local MPP mention him in his Diary here http://www.bobdelaney.com/canadaday-12/ (again his name is mispelled as surender instead of surinder)

I can find even more sources if that is deemed necessary. I hope this satisfied your needs of secondary sources aswell as notability.

14:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot see the full text in your first two links,[13][14] so I cannot judge whether Shastri's life and career is described in any depth. Your third link just has a photo of Shastri greeting some politicians,[15] so it does not establish notability. Your 4th link is Bob Delaney calling Shastri a spiritual leader in front of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario,[16] but there is no detailed coverage of Shastri's life and career. Your 5th link is Delaney again, writing in his official blog, saying Shastri is a spiritual leader.[17] Like the other links, there is nothing about this that satisfies any portion of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, which require in-depth descriptions of Shastri. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a "spiritual leader" is not enough to establish notability. There are far, far too many people so described for us to have articles on all of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete - spammy with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Larpcraft[edit]

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

CSD contested by IP. No indication of notability. Game fails WP:NVG. Dewritech (talk) 15:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:02, 13 November 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 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis Dean (Soldier)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER. No indication that he meets GNG Gbawden (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Article is completely unsourced and I can't find any references to show he meets WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. All you have to do is type his name into Google and you can see what comes up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayDarlington (talk • contribs) 14:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fighting in the Second World War and being awarded some medals (VC yes, MC no) are not enough, nor is showing up in Google, otherwise we'd be inundated. His obituary in the Southport Visitor shows that his military career, commendable as it may be, doesn't satisfy SOLDIER. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A brave officer with a fine service record to be sure; however, the subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in WP:RS so fails notability under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment most of the article is a copyright violation of http://www.paradata.org.uk/people/ellis-dean MilborneOne (talk) 12:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, concerned over possible conflict of interest with main editor. --Molestash (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unfortunately I don't think there is significant coverage to meet notability guidelines. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:36, 17 November 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 02:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Emiliano Nash[edit]

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

Subject does meet notability guidelines. Very little in the way of references, and very little turns up in web searches. Onel5969 (talk) 12:40, 13 November 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 November 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been able to add a couple of references, but am unable to independently substantiate the one first prize his firm's website says he won, the Premio Bergamo for urban planning in 2010. The other awards, for which I did find references, are second places. I don't find any independent extended treatments of him or his work that would meet GNG. The article has been gutted a couple of times, but the older versions didn't net any additional references either. So I have not been able to find sufficient evidence of notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:40, 13 November 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 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commando Selection Training Course[edit]

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

Subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable per WP:GNG. Whilst some SF selection cses have attracted quite a bit of coverage, such as that for the SAS / SASR etc, the Commando Selection Training Course has not. The only sources that seem to be available are the Defence Force Recruiting website which is hardly significant nor is it independent. What information exists can be covered elsewhere such as at 2nd Commando Regiment (Australia) etc. Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Anotherclown (talk) 10:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, there is an Australian documentary series (Commando 2013) dedicated in a large part to this process. This Documentary has also been on the Qantas in-flight Documentary library for the past 10 months and has prompted a large spike in interest. This has been communicated by ADF recruitment, through which I work, with continuous requests for copies of the documentary and additional information regarding the Selection process outlined. Accuracychaser (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Qantas in-flight video and a recruiting website are not evidence of "significant coverage" which is what is required. As far as I can tell the subject has only received passing mention in a few books and articles, but never in the detail needed to support a stand alone article. Wikipedia isn't here to regurgitate the DFR website - those interested in joining can find the information there. The make up of the course seems to change fairly frequently anyway and will probably be called something else next week... Pls prove me wrong though - provide the details of the independent sources which cover this course in detail and I will withdraw this nomination. I have no agenda I just don't think it is currently covered sufficiently in reliable sources to be notable. This may of course change over time but at the moment there is nothing that I can find. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find some coverage of the article in a section, but not like other article's sections, if we can keep this article, we can add references and fix the sections up for a minute or two. However, I find this article broken up so much that we might need a complete rewrite. It's more like an application form instead of an encyclopaedia article. DSCrowned^(talk) 12:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a run of the mill special forces selection process. The claim that the course is "one of the toughest military courses in the world" is almost certainly rubbish - there is no way that the Australian Army could man two commando battalions and the SAS Regiment from its relatively small pool of infantry if it insisted on them being among the best soldiers anywhere (and the Australian SAS course is, of course, tougher anyway - and even there candidates are apparently provided with more assistance than is the case for the British SAS course, for presumably the same reason) Nick-D (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think this topic is independently notable enough to warrant an article of its own; even within other articles such as the regiments themselves I wouldn't really see the need to cover this in much more than a couple of short sentences. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Well done Nick-D on including a personal bias to the topic. Please feel free to provide evidence for your claims. From my research the Regular Army actually only maintains SASR and the 2nd Commando Regiment as regular forces, with 1 Commando Regiment a reserve unit (not drawing from the Regular Army Battalions). Also, both the SASR and 2 Commando Regiment actually draw their personnel from all across the Australian Defence Force and off the Civilian street in some cases, information I have attempted to update in some of the specific Unit webpages. I do not think it is healthy or productive discussion to compare different organisations, or in this case their processes for selection, without factual evidence. Simply stating the known facts on each and allowing others to formulate their own educated opinions should be the intent. I agree that the selection courses seem to change on a regular basis, and that constant update would be required in order to keep up with this. In doing so I would propose to simply make it a component of the 2nd Commando Regiment page itself. Since Wikipedia is one of the first points of reference for nearly all topics imaginable, why would be not look to at least maintain this information and acknowledge that it may be overtaken by events at some point, then update it when the facts become available? Also Anotherclown - It is not a "Qantas in-flight video" only, it is an Australian Documentary that during the course of being included in the in-flight library has drawn interest that Wikipedia may be able to assist in providing further information. According to channel 9 it was also viewed by approximately 680,000 - 790,000 Australians per episode during it's initial broadcast, with an additional 55,000 viewings over the past 4 months on the Qantas circuit. I'm not looking to promote this program, as I do not necessarily believe it is a good production, but present these figures to highlight that there is probable cause to expect some subsequent interest in the topic, and that Wikipedia would be an obvious source to perhaps support this. Accuracychaser (talk) 07:41, 15 November 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 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Strum[edit]

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

I'm not sure that the subject of this article is notable. The article contains no references and the extensive list of external links does not include any reliable sources as far as I can see. Besides that, the article is written in an uncyclopedic style and includes lots of unnecessary verbiage. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Poorly written and reads like a PR sheet. Kierzek (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spent a good while looking for something that would put Strum over the notability threshold set out at WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Spent another good while looking for something that would put her band, Bo Pepper, over the notability threshold set out at WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, thinking I might create an article on them and recommend a redirect for Ms. Strum. Came up with very little for either (although slightly more for Bo Pepper, so there might be an article in there somewhere if someone has more joy in their searches than I did). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:57, 13 November 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 Taiko no Tatsujin. Any content worth merging is available in the history. Randykitty (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taiko no Tatsujin (video game)[edit]

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

As a fan and creator of articles of some of the more recent releases, I am nominating all articles of individual Taiko no Tatsujin releases for deletion because there is just not enough notability individually. Most console releases receive a Famitsu score and that's it, and arcade releases receive even less RS attention. Most times I write on any of these it easily spirals into only large chunks of unsourced prose and/or just the playable song list. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bundle added. Taiko: Drum Master was kinda OK IMO because as the only English release more RS actually cared. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 09:47, 13 November 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 November 13. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 09:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 10:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Hisashiyarouin, why are these being nominated for deletion? Wouldn't it make more sense to just redirect them to the series page (Taiko no Tatsujin)? They're all valid search terms. Did anyone contest you redirecting the ones without sources? czar ♔ 14:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly on the safe side, considering there is so many of them and there are considerable work from other people. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 23:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect. A WP:VG/RS search shows enough coverage for the series in aggregate, but not individually (eh, could probably make a case for the original DS release with its review from NWR, sales article in Kotaku, Wired mention, but it really would fit better in the parent article). If reliable non-English and offline sources can be found for an individual title, have at it. Nothing to merge, the articles and track listings are unsourced. czar ♔ 14:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge - Deletion is certainly not appropriate. Merge and redirect as appropriate with the series page. JTdale ^Talk 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge - Per Czar and JTdale. Especially if Famitsu has given them scores I see no reason to delete this RS info. Also is Famitsu really the only magazine covering Japanese games these days? I only know anything about Japan's 1990s-era coverage, but they used to have several magazines back then. Whatever happened to Famimaga? Gamest? Beep? Have they all gone defunct? Is there nothing that has replaced them? -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 19 November 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. Pure promotion. Had I seen this earlier, I would have speedy deleted as G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Srully Abe Stein[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)

The subject lacks sufficient depth of coverage in reliable, intellectually independent sources to meet the notability guideline at WP:BASIC. VQuakr (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

they are links to Wall Street Journal, Haaratz, and an outside You Tube clip, as well as Kava Shtiebal Fourm (there was other fourm as well that was deleted by someone, they will be entered soon) thy clearly shows independent interest in this person. Fultichan (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be here and here. Neither one appears to provide significant coverage of the subject. Youtube and forums are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fultichan. Both of the articles linked although they also talk about other people, they chose Srully's picture, and that is how it was published. That does show significant interest in him. Also from the forums that were linked it is evident that at least in specific communities that is a big interest in Srully and his thoughts.

I see that Fultichan asked on your talk page why you deleted th "writings" section. I agree with him, and it seems to be really interesting. Fultichan, I think you should add it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.50.157 (talk • contribs) 07:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC) — 160.39.50.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Read here the other part of the discussion. I believe that by now we have provided enough evidence to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultichan (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the writer, the subject is very interesting, at least to hundreds of people in my community. I don't know who those people that are requiring to delete it our, but it seems to me that they are people in the Hasidic community that are known for hating everyone that leaves them, trying to shut them up, and hate when people speak up. I feel that for the sake of the people who left this community, this has to stay. Especially considering that Srully is of great interest because of his family status. (Chavie Feldman (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC))— Chavie Feldman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per User VQuakr (talk · contribs) and User Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). This article relies on personal blogs and self-promotion and no real RS at all. The article clearly violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK & WP:NOTFORUM. Maybe in a few years time, if the subject picks up fame/notoriety/whathaveyou and then gets seriously covered by the media (not just as part of minor family scandals) or is cited in reliable sources, the subject can be revisited, but for now there is not much of anything here to justify it as encyclopedic or "noteworthy". Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N.b. I have not !voted herein; I only provided deletion sorting. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We provided a whole list of links to outside forums that do both, talk about him as for himself, and discuss his theology and philosophy. While we understand that these sources have two issues, one being that they are in Yiddish and not in English, s well as being fourms and not normal sites. It is necessary to understand the nature of the subject and community, where this is as formal as it gets. At the same time, this shows an big interest in the subject and his works, and asks for the need of an article. Fultichan (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we are not in any way affiliate with the subject, although we do know him in person, and are exposed to him and his works. Fultichan (talk) 04:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fultichan: who is "we"? VQuakr (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: this account is shared by a group of 6 people that are part of a semi publishing company, working on doing research and publications regarding several Jewish - Hasidic related subject. This article was written combined by 3 of our staff, and edited by another. Fultichan (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Fultichan: and NOTE to closing admin/s: What you say is very troubling. a. You mention "outside forums that do both, talk about him as for himself" yet you show no awareness of Wikipedia's requirements for WP:RS that is a key requirement for any article. b. You claim that "this account is shared by a group of 6 people that are part of a semi publishing company" that violates WP:Group accounts aka Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Role accounts: "Because an account represents your edits as an individual, 'role accounts', or accounts shared by multiple people, are as a rule forbidden and blocked..." so by all rights you should be WP:BLOCKED ASAP by an admin who sees this. c. You also claim that you "are part of a semi publishing company...This article was written combined by 3 of our staff, and edited by another" which, without more clarification from you, you, you, you, you, and you, then raises the question of violating WP:Paid editing aka Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editing: "Paid editing is the practice of accepting money to edit Wikipedia. Paid editors who insert material that is promotional in tone into an article may be presumed to be violating our WP:NPOV Advertising, promotion, public relations, and marketing are prohibited by our policy WP:NOT. Paid editors, especially those who are paid by the hour, or who submit "billable hours" to justify their salaries, must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise. No editor should be subjected to long or repetitive discussions by someone who is being paid to argue with them. Any editor who refuses to accept a consensus against his or her position by arguing ad nauseam will likely be violating several Wikipedia guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:Tendentious editing, WP:Disruptive editing, WP:WikiBullying, WP:Own or WP:Civility..." d. You also claim that you are "working on doing research and publications regarding several Jewish - Hasidic related subject [sic]" which is very strange because if this article of yours is anything to go by, it has nothing to do with Hasidic Judaism as such since it discusses how the subject rejected his former Hasidic way of life and is now an atheist, so if anything what you are writing about is anti-Hasidism or Anti-Judaism that would fit into Category:Criticism of Judaism and certainly NOT into Category:Hasidic Judaism. Thus it is therefore intellectually dishonest and abuse of logic for you to claim that you are writing about a topic when it is obvious that you have a POV agenda to write against that topic under the guise of "publishing" and "editorship" and whatnot. Hopefully an admin will look into this and give us some clear guidance before the matter gets out of hand. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Oversight on my part. I have now made the correction that it's User VQuakr (talk · contribs) I was referring to. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is pure spam that uses social networking posts (and now SPAs) to push the ludicrous assertion that an unremarkable undergraduate student is the 21st Century's answer to Socrates. He has "hundreds of Facebook followers"...? Big fucking deal, so does my sister. A teenage cousin of mine has approximately 1500 and yet is not on Wikipedia begging for attention. This article is taking the piss. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 05:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability requirements, possible spam/self-promotional Avi (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is merely the biography of one man breaking away from religion to more fully engage with secularity, but the subject—Srully Abe Stein—is not particularly notable. Perhaps notes from his experience can be merged into general articles on related phenomenon—the relationship between secular courts and religious courts as pertains to divorce—for instance. This is a young man attending college, formerly Orthodox, with children, with interests, it seems to me, in both religious and secular matters. I don't think notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is attained based on those fairly unremarkable specifics. I don't think the articles in the Wall Street Journal and Haaretz are establishing notability, for Wikipedia purposes, for a biography of the individual. Those sources are discussing a phenomenon. That phenomenon is noteworthy. But we already have articles on that phenomenon. The individual serves to illustrate the phenomenon. But this should not be construed as conferring notability on the individual. Bus stop (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails general notability guidance. WP:ANI is the correct forum for blocking an account that is used by multiple Homo sapiens. JFW | T@lk 15:20, 20 November 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. Contributors agree that this is a promotional article that should not be retained as it is, but they disagree about whether this should result in deletion, merging or redirection. In the absence of a consensus to delete, I suggest that editors continue to discuss editorial solutions to the problem on the talk page. If a promotionally-minded editor disrupts such discussions, their views should be disregarded. Sandstein 20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Public HIV testing in the United States[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unambiguous promotion. TeenAIDS-PeerCorps (same author) was speedily deleted under G11, this article qualifies as well. The article is pervasively biased to the extent that we should blow it up and start over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom based on it being created by an SPA, i.e. an expert on the topic? We want contributions from experts. Nom based on article being "promotional"? (not a valid deletion reason), and it is not promotional anyhow. Promotional or advertising for what? For a business? There is no business named "Public HIV testing in the United States" as far as i know. And call for wp:TNT is a signal of bias and inappropriate understanding of Wikipedia and its purposes, in my general opinion. "TNT" is justified if there are proven copyvios perhaps, but calling for deletion of past contributions equates to calling for erasing of contributing record. It is a basic tenet of wikipedia that editors are credited for their contributions. And there are 57 sources in article. I have not evaluated them, but it appears to be sourced, to meet wp:GNG. --do ncr am 17:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant promotion for John B. Chittick and his organization, TeenAIDS-PeerCorps. Absolutely a valid basis for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON (#4) and WP:G11. And WP:TNT isn't just about copyvio issues. The article is in clear violation of policy, hence even if not deleted it must be stubified. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, replying about Deletion Reason #4, to start. That reason, quoting fully is "Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)", with link to wp:Spam that describes spam as "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." This article is not advertising anything, no commercial product or service. There is no external link spamming to multiple articles going on, as far as I know. If the references and coverage in this article give undue weight to Chittick, that is a matter for editing, does not require deletion of the article. The topic seems valid. Actually, the apparent "cause" of Chittick, to de-stigmatize AIDS testing among teens in the U.S., seems to be an accepted "good cause", as exemplified by the 501c3 charitable nonprofit status of that Teen organization. I see no commercialism, no means by which this article is promoting commercial enrichment of Chittick or anyone else. Whether the pro-AIDS-testing advocacy aspect of the topic is overly done in the article or not, and should be balanced by more expression of opposition vs. AIDS testing, is debatable, can be addressed by editing and by discussion at the Talk page of the article. I don't mind it being stubbified, but it seems there is documented to be an issue, a cause, or some other term for a notable legitimate topic for wikipedia, from the plethora of references. And, logically, I would expect that stigmatizing vs. de-stigmatizing of AIDS testing for teens would be a controversial topic that is important and covered and legitimate as a topic (though no one slant on the issue should be overly promoted in Wikipedia). But, overall, I do NOT see deletion reason #4 applying, at all. --do ncr am 20:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADMASQ: "Articles considered advertisements include ... public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual."
WP:PROMO: Articles "promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."
In response to your comment about this cause being "important," see WP:VALINFO.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, slow down with your blithe assertions of various policy or guideline or essay references that may or may not apply at all, please! :) I'll respond to your 2nd of first two assertions, next, outdented. :) On the indented side, that's bollocks --if i may try to use an expression that i never do use --to assert that i am trying to promote "valuable info". I don't have anything to do with it. I am asserting that the article seems like it is on a notable topic, and that Deletion Reason $4 doesn't apply. :) --do ncr am 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2nd, replying to the assertion of wp:G11, the 2nd assertion by DrFleishman. The most relevant thing there is: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." I don't think the article is exclusively promotional, and it is right to do some editing maybe, and that is preferable to deletion. Case solved, right? Cheerio. :) --do ncr am 02:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because in my view the promotion is so pervasive and widespread that blowing up the article and starting from scratch would be more likely to lead to a neutral, non-promotional article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Starting over" doesn't actually require deletion as a first step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 23:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least Drflieschman acknowledges the validity of the topic for a Wikipedia article. That's part of the problem with anyone invoking wp:TNT; it is an invalid essay itself, and persons using it to try to argue for deletion have to admit, as I believe Dr. Fleischman does, that the topic is valid. Once that is accepted, then there is a minor question of whether the current article needs to be deleted for some reason in order for an improved article to be created. Obviously, no. It is obviously better to edit the current article -- with its many sources already identified and included -- than to delete it all. And keeping it preserves Wikipedia's promise to credit writers under our license terms. And there is no copyvio alleged anywhere or any other legitimate reason to delete. So, keep. And sure, tag for improvements, or actually do some editing to make some improvements. :) --do ncr am 03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 03:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is a jumble, reads like a puff piece. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 11:59, 7 November 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 06:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix - All the 'deletion' votes so far are not at all addressing anything but the content, which is not how Wikipedia works. Notability is what we need to discuss, and in my opinion the topic is undoubtedly notable. Now, I detest WP:TNT, it is a ridiculous idea in my opinion, since you can fix things is a myriad of more sensible ways that doesn't require us to waste a week here while people should've been improving Wiki. While I can see this article is to promotion to chittick, it is not as bad as people are making it out to and editing would easily fix that. JTdale ^Talk 16:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of notability isn't the only valid basis for deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to John_B._Chittick. There is plenty about this testing technique there. This article is bloated and unencyclopedic. LaMona (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect one bare-bones, non-promotional paragraph about the program, including its "unofficial world record", to the one-paragraph section of Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS#Screening, which covers similar issues of screening teens in another country. (I agree with Doncram and JTdale that WP:Deletion is not cleanup.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotional to be worth saving. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the one-paragraph section of Diagnosis of HIV/AIDS#Screening per WAID. As it stands this is PROMO bloat. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 20 November 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. Hopelessly Promotional. Had I seen it earlier, possibly a G11 DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Success Strategies Inc[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - this is an actual textbook WP:PROMO complete with "scare the consumer" call-out WSJ quotes from articles that have never mention the actual subject. The company has a brief mention in one article and no other established notability. EBY (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is well referenced and I have found some more references on a Google search that can be used as well. However the article needs thorough rewriting to clean up the promoting materials. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 13:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company has been covered on several big medical news websites and you can review the same at http://www.healthcaresuccess.com/about/press so I don't think there is any notability issue with the company. However, I would welcome people to remove the promotional part (if Any) from the page. - Andrew (Talk) 18.34, 29 October 2014 (UTC) — Andrewjohn39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete after some consideration. I see very few independent references to suggest notability and there appears to be a COI here. Deb (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG may be debatable but the copy definitely has the primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO as the nominator stated. It also appears to violate WP:COS Spellsgood (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It should be noted that the advert tag was removed from the article without a consensus. Spellsgood (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:GNG and includes many notable mentions elsewhere from broad but specific medical publications to suggest authority. sjsuarez (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC) — sjsuarez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP; I could not find any independent sourcing at all. The article's references are mostly self-referential - press releases or the company's own website. --MelanieN (talk) 02:30, 20 November 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. Clear consensus that the subject is not notable DGG ( talk ) 19:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Platt (Singer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Cannot qualify as notable under WP:MUSIC, she is covered in List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_11)#Lauren_Platt, is this not enough? LiamJFriel (talk) 11:47, 3 November 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 November 3. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 11:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Please keep this it's got a reference and there is news comeing everydayA Candela (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Piles of news articles come up immediately when googling, and so fills point one of WP:Music; Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. X Factor UK is ongoing I will note, so more coverage can be expected every day. JTdale ^Talk 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So by this rationale every reality TV contestant is entitled to a separate Wikipedia page? What is more notable about this particular contestant than any other? LiamJFriel (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the mainstream media sees it fit to obsess so much over each candidate, then probably yes. They may fall afoul of WP:BLP1E but that states If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual' and given the programs purpose is to create music stars, that is arguably not expected here. JTdale ^Talk 10:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While fame can be debatable there is little doubt that the contestants in this type of show receive considerable coverage. Possibly should be deleted in future if that success/ exposure is not maintained. WP:Music; Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. X Factor UK is ongoing I will note, so more coverage can be expected every day. thesocialpro ^Talk 18:04, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We do not generally have articles on X-Factor contestants until they win or release a significant single or album. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough.Cleanupbabe (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she can have her own article if she wins or/and releases material. Unreal7 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be a requirement? WP:GNG simply states reliable, independent coverage. Any view other than that then is outside the regulations and going above them. We have thousands of stubs about athletes who won a bronze medal at the Olympics once, or even worse - played for a national football team for a few years. There is a lot more material on X Factor finalists than there ever will be on minor sports personalities. JTdale ^Talk 11:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no regulations on Wikipedia. There is only opinion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 19 November 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 06:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lauren is no more notable than any of the other 15 acts who made the live shows, so either everyone gets an article or nobody does. Unreal7 (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Lauren is hardly notable aside from her involvement in the series; and to Unreal7, that kind of statement above is hardly an argument to be made. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 18:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name crops up in the tabloid media, routine coverage for a contestant on the X-Factor. The coverage appears to be generally trivial and refer to the subject solely in the context of a single television show (i.e., a violation of GNG). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:00, 20 November 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. Clear BLP1E, and a negative event at that. (I assume he's still living, but it would be a delete in any case) DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Douglas Hunter[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Zanhe (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources that would put him over the threshold for inclusion. Only thing I managed to dig up were court reports about his disciplinary, but even that just means a case of WP:BLP1E. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:48, 13 November 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 02:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Lyons[edit]

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

Non-notable attorney, fails WP:BASIC. Similar to WP:Articles for deletion/Edward H. Royle, created by the same user. Zanhe (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a publicity piece to me. He is a lawyer who occasionally puts out a podcast and serves on the boards of a few orgs, No indication that he is notable. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a prosified résumé, relying almost entirely on primary sources, for a lawyer who doesn't really show even the slightest evidence of passing WP:LAWYERS at all. The most substantive notability claim he's got here is "provided legal commentary to the media on a couple of news stories" — but that does not bestow notability on a lawyer, because he's not the subject of that coverage. And the photo is far too casual, both in dress and in setting, to have been taken by anybody who doesn't know the subject personally — so there's almost certainly a WP:COI issue here, too. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 08:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already mentioned before, WP:LAWYERS was not intended by its author to be a exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a lawyer notable. James500 (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of Wikipedia's subject-specific notability guidelines is a perfectly "exhaustive listing of every factor that might make a practitioner of that field of endeavour notable" — they all leave open the possibility of exceptions or points that might not have been previously considered. That's why they're called guidelines and not decrees. But that has no bearing on the matter at hand, which is that this article isn't making or reliably sourcing any claim that would pass even the most liberal interpretation of any of Wikipedia's inclusion tests. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he badly fails my standards for lawyers. He's literally done nothing of note: no law review, no moot court leadership, no major appellate wins, no clerkship, no published or edited articles, no academic service, not yet Q.C., no partnership nor ownership stake in a law firm, no public service, no political campaign of his own. Quite bluntly, this person appears to be as run of the mill as your average junior associate could be. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 17 November 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 02:50, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recci Canon[edit]

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

Not a notable actor. His best known role was a very small one. The only reference is IMDB. JDDJS (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any indication that they meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. If his IMDB page is to be believed, he has done very little, nothing of significance and nothing in the last 7 years. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 13 November 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. Sufficient consensus DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Bowers[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a radio broadcaster, edging heavily into promotional/public relations rather than encyclopedic style, and relying only on a single primary source for referencing — and while he's still with the CBC in a different role, he's no longer the host of the program that this article describes him as the host of, with the result that even the one primary source that's been cited here doesn't actually support the claim anymore (and just replacing it with the website of the program he is now hosting would still be a primary source.) It's also worth mentioning that the article's original creator was User:VoiceOfRuss, raising the likelihood of WP:COI editing. As a former host of a provincewide program on CBC Radio, he might certainly qualify for a properly sourced and neutral article, but he's not entitled to keep a PR profile that's referenced only to a primary source that isn't even relevant anymore. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerlyHMSSolent)}|lambast 04:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any reliable secondary sources to support notability. Tchaliburton (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to suggest that the subject meets either the general notability guideline or the specific guidelines for broadcasters. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. Bbb23 (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A64 (Croatia)[edit]

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

Non-notable motorway. I declined it as a blatant hoax speedy delete, because it wasn't blatant to me. User who nom'd for speed del was Imzadi1979. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete—the creator has created other hoax articles on non-existant highways in the UK, both of which were deleted (M51 motorway (Great Britain) and M7 Motorway (A375 Motorway Spur) ). Given that there is no proof this exists, it's not even a non-notable motorway, it's a non-existant one. Imzadi 1979 → 04:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a blatant hoax, but a hoax nevertheless. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per article creator's precedent of creating hoax articles. Also this cannot possibly be a serious attempt at a map or route marker (I can't tell). –Fredddie ™ 22:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete the A64 itself is a complete fabrication, and the article content is nonsensical. Of course, there are no sources there.--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - very blatant hoax. The original CSD should never have been declined IMO! Jeni ^(talk) 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Claims that was downgraded to European route E75, but that road does not even go through Croatia KylieTastic (talk) 17:42, 15 November 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. Secret ^account 19:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Parish, Gowanda, New York[edit]

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

Non-notable local church; seems to have been created as a WP:COATRACK to publicize parishioners, especially the Gernatt family. Orange Mike | Talk 03:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a reluctant !vote since someone obviously invested a great deal of effort into this article. However the article does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. The sources generally don't meet our standards for establishing notability and as the nom points out there is strong evidence that this article had a promotional objective. I would also refer any reviewing editors to my note on the talk page and a rather lengthy discussion by various editors of this article's merits and lack thereof here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not pass WP:GNG or any other relevant notability guideline. No coverage in independent sources; cobbled together via sources from the parish/village itself and a lot of WP:OR. Article creator has a knack for creating large, attractively laid out articles which fail notability upon close examination, 95% of which are promotional of the Gernatt family. Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As AO said, it's unfortunate, but the editor who created this (and a number of related) articles insists on investing time in fantastic bloat on apparently non-notable subjects. For example, here is a passage about one of the parish's schools, now closed:

Patrick Brady was the principal of the School,[10][31][19][20][21][22][29][32][33][34] and Donna Cook is the assistant principal at the time of closure.[10][31] Cook taught 6th grade at the School, and has the most years of teaching experience - at 36 years - of anyone in its employ;[35] she also doubled, when needed, as assistant principal.[10][31]

Really? REALLY? Does the reader REALLY need to know who was the principal of a closed school (with ten -- count 'em, ten! -- citations) and that the 6th-grade teacher had the most teaching experience, and "also doubled, when needed, as assistant principal"? Of a now-closed school? What about the bus routes, you ask? Well,

Students were bussed to the School from more than 12 towns and/or villages, including Gowanda, Persia, Collins, Perrysburg, North Collins, Eden, Springville, Forestville, Cattaraugus, Little Valley, Pine Valley, and Silver Creek.[26] The Persia, Collins, and Perrysburg students were included in the Gowanda bus routes.

All of this is elaborately cited to school newsletters, parish circulars, pennysavers, and so on, giving the fake appearance of significant coverage, which in fact is absent. There's no sense at all of what's appropriate to include. EEng (talk) 04:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC) P.S. Bonus points for "The parish is named for St. Joseph." Thanks for letting us know![reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is indeed, as mentioned above, an elaborately constructed edifice, which upon closer inspection turns out to be made of pure fluff - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing". Does not pass WP:GNG or any of its derivative/subsidiary standards - there isn't even sufficient solid reference material for the shortest of stubs. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per AO and EEng. Article is supposedly about a parish but is bloated with insignificant trivia about the church and school. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this article any different from all of the other parishes and churches listed on this organization? This is just another reflection of the negativity of people's politics and personal perspectives against anything here that includes any mention about the Gernatt Family. It makes it appear as though there is a political vendetta against anything that even remotely mentions these people. This is so pathetic. What happened to people who think outside of the box? I can see they are no longer getting involved in these type of unfounded and unnecessary discussions. Hours of work down the drain, people. What a waste. I really do regret ever contributing anything here for so many people whose only desire is to delete others' work. Follow the policy, not your own personal perspectives. I realize that the policies are not consistently enforced, but the inflexibility reflected just becomes more and more obvious with each deletion request of articles that I have created. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add, please put up all articles that I've created for deletion. They should not be included in this organization. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find that Keep !votes go farther if they respond to the actual issues raised by concerned editors. I see no response whatever to the lack of notability or reliable sources. There are lots of links in the above comments. Please take a look at our guidelines and policies. If you really want to delete your other articles, you can request deletion by blanking them and then adding the tag Db-g7 inside a set of {{}}. Please note: YOU MAY ONLY DO THIS IF NO OTHER EDITORS HAVE MADE ANY SUBSTANTIVE EDITS ON THE ARTICLE. Finally, the merits or lack thereof of other articles is not a defense in AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is the rhetorical equivalent to "But mom, Tim did the same thing and HE DIDN"T GET GROUNDED!" -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Orientem, You've obviously missed my point. I understand about the tags that you added to the article, however it was put up for deletion because of Orange Mike's views about promotionalism regarding the Gernatt Family. Certainly, three mentions of Gernatt, Sr. and a mention of his wife, Flavia, could be trimmed down, and already have been. So, to me, that negates the issue about why it was put up for deletion in the first place. Orange Mike should put up the other 9 St. Joseph Parish articles throughout the world for deletion, as well, for lack of notability. I see that most of you are entering into this ongoing issue and aren't quite aware of all of the history, however I'm already past wits end with wasting my time and effort here. I'm tired of the articles I've creating being singled out for deletion due to political perspectives. That's the bottom line, and that's what you've missed for the past 4 months. That is also why I'm no longer very active here - too much ugliness, negativity, and politics. This is why I just see this as more of the same. It just gives those editors who are eager to delete and be so exceedingly ugly the opportunity to do so, as evidenced particularly by those who have a history of tracking my edits, and reflected by their contributions in this discussion. That's why I say delete everything; I'm sorry I've contributed anything here. -Just fyi so you're up to date. Daniellagreen ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have ignored every word I wrote, as also the well reasoned comments by other concerned and highly experienced editors, instead opting for histrionics, I see no point in continuing this conversation. The reviewing Admin will weigh the arguments and the chips will fall where they will. If you choose to leave the project, you do so with my sincere regret, but also my best wishes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other parishes, 5 are listed in the National Register of Historic places; if you examine Wikipedia, most individual churches included here are included for this reason. There's one on the Register in Raywick KY that should have an article. The other two in the US have very concise articles--had this been written similarly, it would not have attracted attention. The one in the UK, is one of the earliest Jesuit churches in the 19th century after they returned to England. There are probably a few hundred others in various countries, of which a few might be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find no evidence of any substantial mention of this parish sufficient to help establish notability in the archives of the Western New York Catholic, the newspaper of the diocese of Buffalo, although, admittedly, I am not at all sure how far back those archives go. Nor do I find any significant mentions in the NewsBank database, which includes the Buffalo News newspaper. On the basis of the above, while I think that the article may well still be perhaps notable, given the length of time that the subject has existed and the amount of information which has likely been written about the town and its infrastructure over that time, I have not seen the sources which clearly establish notability. John Carter (talk) 19:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it is full of fluff. However, it was originally part of a parish founded by the Passionists - very shortly after they arrived in North America. It is the only Catholic church in Gowunga and for (nearly 10) miles around. The parish covers a large area. Yes, it is a local church, but it is a significant local church, paid for by a notable person. There is a vast amount of fluff, but that is no reason to delete the article. Once it has been radically downsized, only including information from neutral independence sources such as The Early History of Gowanda and the Dunkirk The Observer, I think notability would be clearer. Pjposullivan (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response Your comment seems to ignore the one fatal flaw with this article. There are a lot of things that can be fixed in articles that are not up to scratch. Even gross promotionalism is often fixable. But you can't fix notability. It's either there or it isn't. Nothing in your comment points to anything that rings the notability bell. The lack of in depth coverage from reliable independent sources cannot be overlooked without chucking N out the window. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response: On the contrary, I think that the church is mentioned sufficiently in independent, neutral and verifiable sources to be notable, such as A Historical Sketch of Gowanda, The Dunkirk Observer article and a Gowanda News article. Furthermore, as per WP:LOCAL, I am surprised that the article was not labelled {{local}} so that it could be merged into Gowanda, New York. Pjposullivan (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Historical Sketch book barely gives four tiny paragraphs about the church + cemetary, whereas nearly all of the other churches in the book get several pages. The Gowanda News "article" is not an article, it's just a photo, and is a press release to boot. You've not given proof of anything substantive actually in the Dunkirk Observer nor even provided a title. "paid for by a notable person" -- huh? Peter Rink doesn't have a wiki article, nor even a mention in the entire encyclopedia except for this article. If you are personally recommending merge into Gowanda, New York, your !vote should be Merge rather than Keep. Softlavender (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Softlavender. The coverage from the historical journal is trivial. The photo-caption doesn't even rank that high. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add: As far as "It is the only Catholic church in Gowunga and for (nearly 10) miles around." I presume you mean Gowanda, which is a village of only ~2,500, so what earthly reason would there be to have more than one? The diocese has 166 parishes (and by the way none of them except this has a wiki article). Softlavender (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response I would hope that 'The diocese has 166 parishes (and by the way none of them except this has a wiki article).' is not being given as a reason for its deletion. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not in and of itself an argument for deletion. It is however strong supporting evidence for the argument that this parish has no reasonable claim to notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been radically downsized, removing any promotional aspects. Pjposullivan (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. The promotionalism has been dealt with. Yet again though, it must be pointed out that the fatal flaw remains notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The church website mentions "Our beginnings go back to 1855 when a Franciscan Friar arrived from Ellicottville to offer Mass with the four Catholic families living in the village." This franciscan friar happens to be Pamfilo of Magliano. Perhaps some significance there? - NQ (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additional reading: "The Catholic Church in Southwestern New York” by Joseph Z. Aud and Clair L. Hodnett - [18] [19] [20] (the last one talks about the establishment of this particular parish) - NQ (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth adding and wikilinking the full name, since per your citations it's the correct person. Even though it's slightly WP:OR, it's some sleuthing that could be significant. Need to cite the full name with at least two of those refs, because none of them give the full connection, with all the relevant detail, between him and Gowanda. (My only concern is that these citations may appear to be coverage of the parish and add an appearance of notability, but notability of the parish as a whole is for this consensus to decide.) Softlavender (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Pamfilo of Magliano visited Gowanda to offer mass is sourced solely to the church website and not mentioned anywhere else, not even in the material I linked. The timeline seems to corroborate but is insignificant as this happened before the establishment of any kind of a church and is not directly related to this particular parish. I'm more interested in Pjposullivan's rationale regarding the Passionists(source) and whether it is a factor in ascertaining notability. - NQ (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The untrimmed full-size version of the wiki article sourced it to the unviewable 2003 SJC directory (and it is still also sourced to that, if you see the end-of-sentence citations), but I've been routinely substituting or adding viewable sources for the non-viewable ones, where possible, on this article, given the less-than-reliable article creator, and given the enormous reference bloat, etc. Agree the connection is hard to establish otherwise; I've just now Googled every variation of the monk's first name or town name, plus Gowanda, and have not been able to come up with anything. The stuff on the Passionists is interesting, but IMO probably belongs on that article, not really this. They probably established a lot of non-notable parishes, which, as the source you give admits, came and went and kept changing names/seats, etc. Softlavender (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a List of parishes in the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo, I would suggest merging the relevant content there. Alternately, it may not be unreasonable to merge the content to Gowanda, New York. But as it stands I don't see that the notability requirement has necessarily been met here. John Carter (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Establishment of this parish is detailed in this book [21]and is mentioned in snippet view in this one [22]. Froggerlaura ^ribbit 03:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes (and good find) on the first source; no on the second, which is only about Fredonia and Dunkirk, not this Gowanda parish. Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first source is a great find for the purpose of verifying or adding factual material. Unfortunately, I don't think it can be counted for the purpose of establishing notability. It is an affiliated source and as far as I can tell it probably discusses the history (up to the early 1900s) of every Roman Catholic parish in the country. I agree with Softlavender's assessment of the second source. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Froggerlaura's find as a source in the article, and it can also be used to cite, replace, verify, or refute any item or citation in the rest of the article. I have also replaced ~~all~~ most all of the non-viewable citations with viewable ones (the viewable ones that were accurate; that little news snippet is not accurate); I really don't like non-viewable citations with this particular group of articles. Softlavender (talk) 01:01, 19 November 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 The Toys. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Harris (singer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Laun chba ller 10:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Toys. My knee-jerk reaction was keep because she has an AllMusic bio and has been interviewed quite a bit in local press (e.g. [23]) in conjunction with her concert tours, but I'm not sure that's actually enough to justify having a separate article (especially when The Toys has so little content). That said, her heyday was long before the internet and there may be more coverage in print sources that would sway me toward a keep. Camerafiend (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support this proposal.--Laun chba ller 09:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 01:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 13 November 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. Sufficient consensus as too promotional. No objection to a proper article on the subject; it might be notable DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YXY Building Blocks[edit]

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

This article is just an advertisement. YXY is a collective trade name for one company's bundling of several industrial chemicals. Wikipedia already has articles for each of these chemicals. There is nothing notable whatsoever about this branded product. None of the references refer to YXY (just the individual chemicals) except the last two which are not independent sources, so there are no independent third-party sources about the YXY brand. If the promotional content were to be removed from this article, I don't think there would remain anything notable or worth merging into the existing chemical articles. The article was created by a single-purpose account who may have an undisclosed COI. ChemNerd (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Have found a source referring YXY however it is a short article and the only thing I could find.http://www.packagingeurope.com/Packaging-Europe-News/60592/Avantium-Appoints-Oskar-Slotboom-as-Chief-Commercial-Officer-.html Wrightie99 (talk) 13:59, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems more like an advertisement than an article. Much of it is about the specific company while the rest of the material is general chemical information that can be included in the existing WP articles on them. There's no significant independent coverage of this particular branding. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company is using Wikipedia as a place to advertise its product. What appear to be wikilinks in the article lead to Avantium's website. It's like a corporate brochure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought it might be possible to reduce the article to its essence and then see what remains, but I gave up after the introduction. There is quite a bit already in WP on these compounds, and this article merely repeats that information. None of the sources that I could find were on YXY; they were all on the chemistry included in this and other articles. The company itself does not appear to warrant an article of its own. LaMona (talk) 00:30, 17 November 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 (NPASR) (Non-admin closure) Duonaut^{(talk | contribs)} 18:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IHeartRadio Fiesta Latina[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Google only gives 94 unique hits on "iHeart Radio Fiesta Latina" and the 300k+ hits on "iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina" boils to to just 167 unique hits. Crystal boll with a smell of advertising. The Banner talk 10:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous references (added recently to article) meeting WP:GNG with more possible, major concert featuring well-known acts, will be played in a major venue -- The Forum -- with music broadcast throughout the nation. Closing administrator, possible animus between nominator and article's creator, which might explain this dubious nomination based on irrelevant criteria ("167 unique hits"); further reason to consider banning nominator from making AfDs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, now you are taking over the harassing campaign? It has nothing to do with the original author, I don't discriminate so i don't care about an authors name or perceived status. I only judge the article.
- Failing WP:GNG is a valid concern, finding just a few relevant hits of this never-held-before-concert too. The Banner talk 12:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. While the announcement of this event is less than a month old, this is getting covered by high quality sources Billboard, Music Times, L.A. Times, plus AXS a major ticket promoter and KFI, a major radio station owned by the promoter. Its a major event by a major promoter at a major venue featuring major stars. Even if this event were to turn into a complete bust, it would be irresponsible for wikipedia to fail to report on it. Trackinfo (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the subject has received multiple mentions in numerous non-primary or secondary reliable sources, none of them focus on the subject of this AfD as the primary topic of those sources. Furthermore, as an WP:EVENT, the subject of this AfD does not appear to yet meet WP:PERSISTENCE. Therefore, my opinion at this time is that it is too soon for this article to be created, and that this article should be incubated as a sandbox of the creator. If this article receives significant coverage many months after the event is over, than it could be said to meet persistence, and this article can then be recreated. As for the statement above "it would be irresponsible for wikipedia to fail to report on it.", I direct the user to WP:NOTNEWS.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the event hasn't happened yet, it is basically a spin-off of the iHeartRadio Music Festival which happened a few months ago. Plus, there are already several references in the article that talk about the festival. Paul Badillo (talk) 06:59, 6 November 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, Biblio worm 03:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iHeartRadio Music Festival, per WP:TOOSOON Hustlecat ^{do it!} 06:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Hustlecat. I smell an advertising rat, and this event has not yet made it on its own (hasn't even happened yet) in a way that warrants an independent article. KDS4444^Talk 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Question: Based on the 7 day AfD clock, this debate is scheduled to close one day before the first concert takes place. The long term significance of this event is quite likely to be noted (or not noted) in the press coverage immediately following the event. Does it make sense to rush to judgement immediately before the event? Whichever way it goes, wouldn't it make sense to wait a few extra days for the press to report? Trackinfo (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be true: when the festival was clearly notable, there would have been no need for this question. The sources, mostly line up info, are not convincing about the notability of the festival. The Banner talk 19:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment 4; 3; 3 there is clearly no trend to decide. The sourcing of the significance of this specific event, exclusively through anticipatory press shows its importance on the coattails of the existing IHeart Radio Festival's success. The decision about this festival as a stand alone will come clearer following the event. I rescued the article on the contention that even in abysmal failure, a public attempt at a big event like this is notable. The article is not lacking for sources of coverage, it is lacking for discussion of the long term viability or repeatability of the festival into the future. When we can add that discussion of the results of the event, independent of its associated predecessor, that should change the Merge and Delete opinions. Trackinfo (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, oppose merge per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. See this article^WebCite in the Los Angeles Times and this article^WebCite in Billboard for two well respected reliable sources that have provided detailed coverage of the subject. The article cites other sources that also provide detailed coverage of the subject.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iHeartRadio Fiesta Latina to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or incubate until after the event Looking at the references in the article, I see "will feature...", "lineup announced", "Fans who cannot attend the festival will be able to ..." More useful would be sources that said, "featured...", "lineup was...", "Fans unable to attend were able to ..." The event may or may not happen. The article is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER of a future event written in future tense, with sentences written for the purpose of being reworked. The article exposes the encyclopedia to the potential for being used as an advertising webhost. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good radio I often listen... but I don't think good for encyclopedia standalone article... maybe Merge fopr now... but must be aloud later if it's enough sourced. 41.190.36.250 (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and keep merged. The article in my opinion might have been speedy deleted as advertising as soon as it was published, except that it was written by a reliable editor , and I certainly am reluctant to do that now because of the extent of the prior discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 16 November 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. Ignoring the obvious sockery, consensus to delete is unanimous -- RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E-Zest Solutions[edit]

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

Speedy delete queried thus in my user talk page:- Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Keep it Have investigated the references. I think the references provided are notable. WP:CORP Shanky3286 14:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)— Shanky3286 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 29 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The majority of the references are from various membership listings, in which E-Zest is one of many and gets a few sentences. The one Reuters article is about an investment in another company, not about E-Zest as a company. Some of the references are repeats of E-Zest promotional copy (e.g. #14). Essentially no 3rd-party references that would attest to notability. LaMona (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it I have checked out the references. The 3rd party references provided are notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Panks hbk (talk • contribs) — Panks hbk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please sign your posts (the instructions are below the editing box). I see two references that are probably reliable: #3 and #20. However, reliable does not mean notable, and I see nothing that makes this company stand out above others. Each of these sources covers dozens of companies in each issue, which speaks more against notability than for. LaMona (talk) 18:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: the 2 Keep !votes are from possible SPAs. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Doesn't provide enough third-party references to prove that it is notable. Lakun.patra (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it The references provided are probably authentic. References #3 #6 #16 #17 #19 and #20 come from notable third party sources. External links like Moneycontrol and Economic Times are noteworthy sources. WP:CORP NEsha21 10:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)— SNEsha21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Examining the references indicated just above as being substantial: #3 is essentially a press release in laudatory terms, even if written by the editorial staff; #6 is a press release on n acquisition; #16 is a reprint of #15, which is one a a string of company profiles in an issue of an industry magazine, also written like a press release in CIO India; #17 I can not access but seems to be an announcement of being a finalist, rather than winning an award does not add much. #20 is another press release in the same industry magazine as #15-16, and #19 is not Reuters, but a press release by osaic Media Ventures Private Limited a published in Reuters India with an express disclaimer. On the basis of their stories, I do not consider the two trade magazines used RSs for notability -- they seem indiscriminate and repeat platitudes about the lie of business and praise of the company. DGG ( talk ) 22:32, 20 November 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 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Humrickhouse[edit]

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

According to a book written by a descendent (full text here), he fought in the American Revolutionary War and rose to captain, but nothing I've read about his exploits there justifies the unsourced "hero" claim in the article. There are no other claims to notability, and I couldn't find anything else about him. Wikipedia is not a memorial. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not meet notability guidelines. I found this source, written by Wayne C. Johnson who I think is the creator of the Peter Humrickhouse article, but it makes no great claims that he was notabile - he was merely present when historic events took place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - subject seems to lack "significant coverage" in reliable sources so is most likely not notable per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 10:11, 20 November 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 21:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sinatra: Collector's Edition[edit]

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

Generic, non notable post-career compilation album, I can find no independent coverage to signify its importance. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 13:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 29 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I, and several friends, own similar-but-slightly-different Sinatra compilation albums. There are undoubtedly countless more variations available in different countries. Without evidence to the contrary, we must presume that this is, as the nominator states, yet another "generic, non notable post-career compilation album". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:17, 14 November 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 ♔ 12:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regulatory translation[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a subject notable enough for a stand-alone article. Might be appropriate for a redirect, but I'm not sure what the target should be. I would say it's a common enough phenomenon to justify a merge except that there's no properly sourced content to merge. I'm nominating this and two other articles (METRiQ and medical translation) created by a user whose edits, as indicated by the language used in the articles and by sourcing entirely to for-profit translation organizations/sites, suggests WP:PROMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, looking at results in GBooks and GScholar, "regulatory translation" refers to notable concepts in both law and biology. The legal usage, however, refers to the translation of public policy objectives into the terms of a private contract [24] [25], which is not what this article is about. There are two articles in JSTOR that I have not considered. The usage in biology is something to do with proteins and is also different to the subject of this article. This second usage seems very common, appearing in large numbers of papers. This expression should, at the very least, be a redirect. The article nominated for deletion does not appear promotional to me. James500 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:39, 6 November 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, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:51, 13 November 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. No clear consensus has emerged after two relistings. Philg88 ^♦talk 08:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ting Chen[edit]

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

I am not seeing how this person meets Wikipedia:Notability (people). Ego Hunter (talk) 05:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've met Ting Chen before and he's a lovely fellow and a good Wikipedian—but there aren't multiple, independent reliable sources indicating notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a decent fellow, but not notable. Kierzek (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation: all his notability is derived from being ex-chair there. I don't see an argument against having a redirect in place. —Kusma (t·c) 10:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep — Most of Ting's notability seems to come from being chair of the Wikimedia Foundation but it seems certainly that his other work and achievements might bring him up over the WP:INHERIT bar. I've tried to search in some of the media databases I have access to and, given his common name, am having trouble searching for things related to this Ting Chen without putting Wikimedia into the search string. I'll be clear. This articles does not establish notability right now but we should try to fix the article before we delete it.

Second, the nominator seems to have 30 minute total contribution history to Wikipedia that exclusively involved nominating visible Wikimedia leaders' biographies for deletion. That contribution history, the username and user page, seems to me like somebody it might be trying to make a WP:POINT by proposing Wikipedia articles for deletion. In this context, I'll give an otherwise borderline article the benefit of the doubt in ways that I might not otherwise in this case.

Full disclosure, I found this because they also nominated the biography about me in the same session. I have met Chen briefly but I don't believe we have ever spoken and I believe there is no WP:COI. —mako ๛ 03:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I agree with Mako, there are indications of notability but this is going to take some research since the sources are likely to be in Chinese. Most importantly, this was one of several bad-faith nominations not made based on policy.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like Mr Hill above, I found this because of the other nominations made by "Ego Hunter", but unlike One of Many, I do not feel that this nomination was made in bad faith. The sourcing for the articles nominated is too poor for a BLP, and the sourcing for Ting Chen is especially sparse. If necessary/desired, the article could be userfied as was done for Samuel Jacob Klein just yesterday. Eddymason (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Let's be clear: poor sourcing is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. The impossibility of poor sourcing is a reason to delete. Good faith/bad faith aside, evidence suggests that Ego Hunter (the WP:SPA that made this nomination) ignored WP:BEFORE. The result has been to keep every other article he/she nominated. My sense is that being chairman of a $50m/year non-profit, combined with other activity alluded to in the article, is probably enough (even with WP:INHERIT in mind) and I'm willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt for now. If time shows that the article can't be improved, I'll be happy to change my !vote. —mako ๛ 18:40, 14 November 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, Dea db eef 03:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there isn't anything more to say about a subject. This article is doomed to become a permastub, IMO. Notice also that Kat Walsh redirects to the article on the Foundation, and there is probably more on her in the media than on Mr Chen. In fact, comparing the last revision of Ms Walsh's article with Mr Chen's article shows that Ms Walsh's article was a masterpiece when compared with this one. Eddymason (talk) 20:29, 14 November 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 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Akina[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability. Inside article; NYT has no reference to him despite link. IMDB and Rate My Professor and previous employer used as main sources. Notability not supported outside article, either. EBY (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is as a composer, not a professor, and should be judged accordingly. He does not appear to have a significant body of work. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete He seems to be an accomplished musician and composer but I simply cannot find any significant sources about him. LaMona (talk) 00:48, 17 November 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 15:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Target (project)[edit]

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

Looks like someone copy-pasted a white paper. This article is filled with buzzwords and promises, and cites only affiliated sources. Even those that have passed peer review have been cited a handful of times at best. Notability not established. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very large, early, multi-disciplinary e-Science project that needs to be covered. Added a section on technological results and a number of references. Removed promotional phrasing.

Weak keep I removed a lot of the promotional language in the introduction and history area. There are few third-party sources, and none the talk about the project qua project. I'm not sure this meets WP:NOTABILITY, but I'm not familiar with the topic. LaMona (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added references (written by authors not affiliated the Target project) on the use of the technology developed by this project to the Euclid Dark Energy missions and to the Muse instrument. This goes some way to correcting the lack of third-party sources. In order to establish notability I added references to some news articles which have appeared in the Netherlands media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TravellingCelt (talk • contribs) 14:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference to an article (Nature genetics, June 2014) about the Genome of the Netherlands Project, which used the infrastructure of Target to conduct whole-genome sequencing analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.39 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sautekai (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Added another external reference mentioning the Target project ( the annual report of the Netherlands Research School for Astronomy) WP:NOTABILITY[reply]

Keep Added another web reference by a third party (eScience center, Amsterdam, Netherlands) to the Target project WP:NOTABILITY. Sautekai (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Added two more external web references ( Case studies published by IBM) to the Target project WP:NOTABILITY. Sautekai (talk) 11:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Added an external reference to the Target project by Bits&Chips WP:NOTABILITY Sautekai (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition clearly establishes the eScience center as collaborating with the Target project, and IBM as being a supplier of technology, so both are affiliated sources. But the newspapers can be good sources, I guess; I'll check them as soon as I'm back behind the paywall. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Sautekai has a clear and present conflict of interest; see their user page. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added three references to papers using Target technology in refereed journals (which have been cited more than the other referenced papers). But note that these papers all have some authors associated with the Target project (unlike the set I added yesterday, which had no Target related authors). I also replaced the failed reference on "Classical Astronomy Pipelines", by an independent reference which gives an overview of the pipelines used in 30 years of NASA missions. Finally, I added an independent reference to the section of Technology Results, but it needs more. I don't want to mislead anyone, so note that I too have a link with the Target project (almost all scientists interested in Big Data in the Netherlands will be associated in some way with Target or the National e-Science Centre or both). However, I'm not a co-author on any of the references quoted in the article and I'm certainly not paid to write Wikipedia articles. TravellingCelt.

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

Relisting comment: Note: I struck duplicate !votes by User:Sautekai and User:TravellingCelt above. Only one !vote is allowed. However, feel free to comment all you'd like.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something obviously went a bit wrong in the previous discussion. One comment and one vote attributed to me, was not in fact made by me! So I edited the previous discussion to reflect this. I will add some more reference from groups which use Target technology, but which are not part of the project (e.g. TACC, Austin). There are also some television interviews, could these be useful to demonstrate notability? TravellingCelt (talk • contribs)

Keep: 19nov2014: Claim has been made that this article reads like an advertisement. Looking up the guidelines on this I quote: "Advertising, marketing or public relations. Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery." This article is not about a product and not about a company. It is about a collaboration project. Hence I consider the advertisement argument not applicable. If I am wrong, please provide the argument. To be fully transparent: I am an astronomical researchers that is also affiliated with the Target project. Me and other researchers at the University of Groningen have really benefitted from the non-commercial research and development by the Target collaboration. Gervankleef

Looking at our own definition of company, it's "an association or collection of individuals, whether natural persons, legal persons, or a mixture of both." That's obviously the case here; Target Holding is also a company in the narrower sense, and the Target Project in fact employs a PR person, Sautekai, making it indistinguishable from other types of companies. Non-commercial vs. commercial doesn't matter, as WP:SOAPBOX forbids "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise." QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. This is an article about the Target Project and its technology (WISE). It was explicitly and deliberately not meant to be about Target Holding, which is an entirely separate entity. The names may cause some confusion, but Target Holding has exactly the same role in Target as IBM and ORACLE. So noting that Target Holding is a company is no more relevant than noting that IBM is a company.

It doesn't matter. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind" is forbidden by WP:SOAPBOX. I was replying to Gervankleef's cherry-picking from that page, using a narrow definition of "company". I'm not confused as to the relation of the company and the project. I was merely pointed out that it was written in the style of an advertisement, regardless of what is being advertised. WP:SOAPBOX aside, this is forbidden by WP:NPOV, which is a nonnegotiable Wikipedia policy, so splitting hairs over what is what is not a company is irrelevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added extra (non-affiliated) references. This includes one showing the origin of WISE in a pan-European project (the OPTICON Optical Infrared Coordination Network) which was as set up to consider a standardised European survey system to facilitate research from the current generation of wide field survey cameras. I think this puts the technology developed in an historical context. TravellingCelt

I think there is a concensus that the early drafts of this article were not acceptable since it was writtenm in a style that resembled an advertisment. But several contibutors since then have extensively re-written the article to avoid this. Moroever a large number of references have been added in order to show that this is not reporting original research (although I'd personally remove the section on Technological Findings) and that it has at least national notability. So I'd like to know what still needs to be improved. If the article can never be acceptable because some of the principle contributors are involved in the project then I'd rather know that now and we can all stop wasting our time. Currently, IMHO the article in its present form does not seem to contain any "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment", but if it still needs more independent scientific references or more references to show notability I could add these.TravellingCelt

I've removed that from the rationale, let's stop that discussion. I'll leave the notability question open for others to comment. I actually think that more independent news sources would be a better addition to establish social/political relevance; scientific papers are going to be written by affiliated researchers in the case of so recent a project. I searched volkskrant.nl, nrc.nl and trouw.nl, but couldn't find anything in their online archives (I don't have access to LexisNexis from here). Computable, cited in the article, is an example of a good news source. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more references from Computable. One dealing with the Target infrastructure, the other dealing with the economic impact. TravellingCelt

Added references to articles in volkskrant.nl and that nrc.nl discuss OmegaCAM. TravellingCelt

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 Five Nights at Freddy's. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Nights at Freddy's Character's[edit]

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

Redundant to Five Nights at Freddy's, the few extra details aren't encyclopedic, and not a plausible redirect due to the title saying "Character's" instead of "characters" Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Five Nights at Freddy's, perhaps in a new section (Plot > Characters). Article title error seems to be just a mishanded typo and editor has expressed need of help in moving (in the article text). Can we move an article while under AfD BTW? 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 01:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it makes a little mess czar ♔ 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge into Five Nights at Freddy's. Character information is fine unsourced, if I recall correctly, as long as it's kept to a minimum, but there's still some gamecruft that should be taken out. And no, moving articles that are AfD nominated isn't a good thing, probably because of the redirect confusion it'd cause. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 05:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge as non-notable, along with the fact that there isn't much to the game that would ever warrant a separate article for character coverage. A merge could be done, but I'm not sure if anything is worth keeping; Five Nights at Freddy's already has a (comparatively) complete gameplay description, while the article in question is unsourced and provides details that I think are too excessive for an encyclopedia (gamecruft, as Supernerd mentioned). A quick listing of the characters and their appearances wouldn't be bad, though. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These characters do not have enough significant coverage individually or together to warrant their own article, and I think even their own section. All of the content on the page or available in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search is video game trivia and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I don't think this is a worthwhile redirect, but in the off-chance that there is a strong case made for merge, the article should be retitled List of Five Nights at Freddy's characters, though I do think the article should be deleted in lieu of all that. czar ♔ 15:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There is definite merit in including some of the information in the overall page for the game (although leave out the creepiness rating), but there's not really a need for a separate article at this point in time since there aren't many characters in the game at this point in time. If there are a substantial amount of new characters in the other games in the series (there will be at least one sequel, apparently), then we can always create a list page. However I do have to say that the former article title (Five Nights at Freddy's Character's) doesn't fit any of the naming conventions and is grammatically incorrect, so it'd have to be deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No point in having a separate one, though the information on the nominated article would be good for the main Freddy's page.--ip.address.conflict (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Important and relevant info for the game, but not enough to merit a separate article. Lump it all back into the game article. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This will need to be pretty constantly watched wherever it goes, as this seems prone to people adding fan speculation and rumors, and the like. Plus they've been keen on adding gender to the mascots, which is somewhat silly since they're animatronics and until it is revealed that the characters are the ghosts or something of various people, they cannot have gender. It'll need constant maintenance to make sure that it's not turned into a fan wikia or rumor mill. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Virginia. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Student housing at the University of Virginia[edit]

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

I'm not entirely convinced there is substantial coverage of this topic in reliable and independent sources. Perhaps this was a fork from University of Virginia#Student housing, but I don't really see the encyclopedic value of having an article largely on a university's housing policy. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 29 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. Articles are not usually given to housing buildings in Universities. Merge all relevant info to the University of Virginia, but don't leave a redirect behind, as I think anyone who would be looking for student housing at a university would simply look up the actual university. The article is practically an orphan as well, with a link coming from the University only, adding to the GNG problems in the article. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete I don't see why we need an article on public housing at a specific university. If there is any content worth saving, merge it as per Aerospeed. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:35, 13 November 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 Bangerz. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe You're Right[edit]

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

Pure WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a separate article per WP:NSONGS as there are no reliable secondary sources discussing the song outside of album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 29 October 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz per nom. –Chase (talk / contribs) 20:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz as a plausible search term. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect The nomination is accurate - the sources mention the song in the context of the album "Bangerz" and do not constitute significant coverage of the song independent of said album. The song was not released as a single and I do not believe that appearances on the secondary download charts are valid as a sole cause for inclusion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:23, 14 November 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. Uncontested deletion, completely unsourced stub (WP:V). May be recreated if appropriately sourced. Sandstein 20:40, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samrau[edit]

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

This unreferenced article appears to be about one of many alternate names of Simurgh. Sammy1339 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the page is also in Russian. Is there something notable on that page? See ru:Самрау? Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be a copy-and-paste of Google Translate's interpretation of the intro section of the Russian article, with minor changes, one of them being changing "Samran," which is one of the names listed in Simurgh, to "Samrau," which might well be another name for the same entity, but which I can't find attested anywhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 3 November 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, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 13 November 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 The Magic Flute#Adaptations. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Magic Flute[edit]

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

Seems to have problems meeting WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. There is no sourcing currently. Of the three EL's one is a dead link and the other two no longer have any info about this specific production. As it stands I think it should be deleted. OTOH if it can be improved I would change this to keep MarnetteD|Talk 00:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please understand that, while I wish I had been in the audience to see this, it looks as though it was an event restricted to 2007 and maybe 2008. If there had been performances since then it might help but I cannot find any mention of them. If the decision is to delete this article it should, probably, also be removed from {{The Magic Flute}}. MarnetteD|Talk 00:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per nom. In addition to the sparse coverage in the article now I found three more sources mentioning this opera: [26] [27] [28] But these sources (except the last) just mention it, they don't cover it in enough depth or detail to meet any notability guidelines. So although it does come close, in my opinion, nevertheless this appears not to meet WP:GNG. Also, only 45 Google hits, which is not a good sign for something made this recently. Jinkinson talk to me 00:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Magic Flute#Adaptations and keep the page as a redirect, given the passing mentions in the press. A brief paragraph on this adaptation and one or two references would fit well there. This article was created just as the show was about to open. As often happens here, Wikipedia articles are (a) useful publicity and (b) save on making your own web page. There simply isn't enough coverage of this show (adaptation) or any repeat performances after that first tour to three cities in Alaska to justify a stand-alone article. It really is no different from a lot of fairly radical productions of other standard operas, e.g. Jonathan Miller's Rigoletto set in New York City amongst the Mafia, and in fact has much less coverage than Miller's production has had. The music is also the same, simply cut. I'd be happy to do the merge, if that's the decision. Voceditenore (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Voceditenore's suggestion, Merge to The Magic Flute#Adaptations and keep the page as a redirect. That is, if decent citation(s) can be found. This is not a separate musical work, just an (admittedly slightly unusual) production. Like Joanna MacGregor's version a few years ago in London, with chamber ensemble accompaniment and updated to 21st century world of journalism (in which my daughter WP:OR sang 3rd boy). Worth a mention, but not a separate article.--Smerus (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Voceditenore's suggestion: Agree that it really does need at least one useful citation. Viva-Verdi (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Voceditenore, notable enough to be included in some regard with The Magic Flute, but not enough for it's own article. Peterborough Street (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete housekeeping non-admin closure: 16:27, 23 November 2014 Amatulic (talk | contribs) deleted page Compassionate Mind Foundation (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement: Also WP:CSD#A7: not notable) czar ♔ 16:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compassionate Mind Foundation[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. Also WP:COPYVIO. — Cirt (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge - this is a "charitable arm" of the creator of this therapy, intended to bring the therapy to the broader market. It is notable as far as Paul Gilbert (psychologist) pushes it and should be merged under his article or, arguably, under the therapy itself.EBY (talk) 15:57, 28 October 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 00:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Redirect to the page for Gilbert. It may possibly become more significant, but so far its activity has been limited to runing workshops and an annual conference. The existing article is too promotional to be worth saving DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Paul Gilbert (psychologist). It is not notable in itself, and the entire information, taking only the most significant ones, can be trimmed down to 2-3 sentences. Chhandama (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as being entirely copyvio (G12) and with no claim of significance (A7). Recreate as a potentially useful redirect to the main source cited in the article, Gilbert. czar ♔ 16:11, 23 November 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 02:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern perspective of back-channel networks[edit]

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

Appears to be an essay. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR and an essay (per nom). Could add "postmodern perspective of" just about anything and apply Baudrillard, et al. Even if there were a source or two on the subject, at best it would merit a mention at another postmodernism-related article (of which there are several). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:08, 29 October 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 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best this is an original essay violating WP:OR. --Jersey92 (talk) 03:59, 13 November 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 02:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Aerotropolis Project Limited[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added two newspaper references to the article, though these relate more to the project than the developers. Aside from these I can see only routine announcement coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 12:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 October 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 00:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO piece for a likely non-notable company. Might even qualify for a Speedy Delete. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:00, 13 November 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 Miami Children's Hospital. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Children's Hospital Foundation[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miami Children's Hospital. There's really not much in the way of good secondary sources for this foundation, making a section on the hospital's page might be a way to salvage some of the useful stuff on this article, but agree with nom, this charity doesn't have enough to stand on Cannolis (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 29 October 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 00:34, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Miami Children's Hospital. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article as per WP:ORGDEPTH. This article provides nominal coverage of the organization, but is rather short. There are a lot of mentions and passing mentions in reliable sources, such as [29], [30], [31] and [32], but overall, the topic lacks significant coverage in rs. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 13 November 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. Editors (all but one) agree that the awards are not notable for this guy (despite his apparently wonderful cock and cumshot!) to pass the PORNBIO test, and they agree also that the GNG is not met. That the awards are important "to those who bother to know" is not helpful without evidence. Drmies (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Alencar[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. PROD was removed without comment. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we should translate de:Rafael Alencar and pt:Rafael Alencar. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a look at the German article. It claims three awards. The first is not backed by the cited source, which says someone else won. The second is a scene based award which is excluded from establishing notability by the guidelines. The third has no source. IMO that it is not enough toring the N bell, though I am open to reconsideration if more information comes to light. On a side note I have to admit that I don't know what the standing of the claimed awards are within the porn business world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update OK I just found a source for the claimed 3rd award (Best Escort 2010) and I am not impressed. But if someone can establish that The Hookies (Caution: Linked source is an adult website.) are a generally recognized major industry award, I will withdraw the nom. I will let the community decide. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - For the record, based on the above-mentioned alternate language Wikipedia articles, it appears that the subject here has won the following awards:

2009 International Escort Award ("The Hookies") - Best Top[33]

2010 GayVN Award - Best Cumshot (Wall Street - Lucas Entertainment)[34]

2010 International Escort Award ("The Hookies") - Best Pornstar Escort (tied with someone else)[35]

2011 International Escort Award ("The Hookies") - International Escort of the Year[36][37]

2013 International Escort Award ("The Hookies") - Best Cock[38]

None of these awards appear to meet the "well-known and significant industry award" standard from PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hookies are very much seen as well-known (to those who bother to know), international and a major industry award, one of few actually. And they specialize in new media genres that the older awards haven't quite figured out. Searching "Rafael Alencar" and "Hookie" will give you more sources showing that he and the award are seen as part of the gay community. Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam10749 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. A virtually unsourced BLP with no legitimate claims to meeting the GNG or any relevant SNG. The "International Escort Awards" do not meet PORNBIO requirements, falling well below even basic notability standards (as established by an overwhelming consensus in their own AFD). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG without reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO. The International Escort Awards don't count as well-known awards. And the GayVN win is scene-related. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 13 November 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. Misses WP:ACADEMIC, but a credible claim is made that this passes GNG. Randykitty (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Rimoin[edit]

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

No obvious notability. Lacks any independent refs other her own employer. Only an Associate Prof so no inherent notability from her academic position. Nothing in the largely cut-and-paste article that suggests any special notability. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 23:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: She is very notable. She has done and published numerous epidemiological studies which can easily be found online and added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreh102690 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 28 October 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Keep These sources seem to be sufficient to pass GNG: [39] [40] [41] [42] Jinkinson talk to me 23:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'"Why is there a mad rush to delete new articles? Whatever happened to the idea that wiki is a collaborative effort at creating a satisfactory article. That means giving editors time to find an article and work on it. I haven't done that much work on it and I have already started wikifying it and Google has helped me find numerous sources. Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no rush. but when an article appears bypassing the articles for creation process and contains an almost wholesale copy-vio from a University web-site, has no external refs and relates to an Associate Professor, a role that has no intrinsic notability, then this gives very little credibility to the idea that this is going to be a biography of a notable person. A better route would have been to draft it in Articles for creation where it would have been protected from external scrutiny and the risk of deletion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON to have demonstrated academic notability according to WP:PROF. The citation counts to her publications do not stand out in what appears to be a high citation field, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article subject has been cited as an expert worldwide on ebola and monkeypox as shown by references Jinkinson provided plus these; KTLA 5 and Australian Broadcasting Corporation. JTdale ^Talk 17:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this. JTdale ^Talk 17:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Manually counting an h-index of 13 from GS. She is primary author on papers with citation counts of 115, 60, 48. I don't have the benchmarks in epidemiology, but I would not say that is particularly "highly cited" in itself and I see no other lasting impact on the field. However, she appears to meet the general notability guideline with significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources that cite her work and expertise such as:
less for notability but still useful:

czar ♔ 15:08, 23 November 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 02:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zest.md[edit]

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

Article created with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. Appears to mainly be cobbled together bits of promotional sources. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I merged the refs so it's easier to see how many there are and to refer to them with a single number. Ref #1 has a single paragraph with Zest.md as one of 64 startups. I don't fully undertand #3, but it seems to be a PR and startup promoter, so not a third-party source in the journalistic sense, more of a business partner. #4 (New Indian Express) is a short news article, but a reliable source. #6 Redorbit is a web site, but with no editorial policy or panel listed, so I would say not a reliable source. (Also note it was sued by Microsoft for defrauding its advertisers.) I can't get a response from #5 or #6 so those are unknowns. All told, I believe this fails WP:NOTABILITY. LaMona (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the point about notability and reference but the link you shared does not seems regarding Zest.md, it says RedOrbit did the fraud. - IMDJ2 14:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, nothing unique. Clearly advertorial. Chhandama (talk) 12:03, 20 November 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. Secret ^account 19:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Armorial Register Limited[edit]

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

This company is not notable publisher of few books, links are self-published. Yopie (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a company registered in Scotland and has a grant of arms from Lord Lyon. Most companies do not qualify. In Scotland there is NO HIGHER notability. If Yopie knows as much about heraldry as he pretends to, he would know this. This is nothing more than a petulant attack after his last two attacks did not work. His idea of improving articles is to delete them. He attaches notices, saying that the article needs to be improved, but does nothing to improve them or give useful advice as to how it is to be done. This is the worst kind of editing on Wikipedia and amounts to bullying. Kiltpin (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiltpin:, please assume good faith or at the very least, do not make personal attacks on an AfD page. I understand that you feel strongly about this publisher, but you should limit your discussion on ways to prove notability for the company. The reason for this is that even if you feel justified in what you're saying, making statements like this can actually work against you because people coming in will see this as a personal attack. If you do think that there is just cause for saying that Yopie is genuinely unhelpful, it would be best to bring that up at WP:ANI or at WP:THIRDOPINION. It's just that making statements like that can very frequently backfire, as it will make incoming editors go immediately on the defensive because they will worry that you will say similar things about them if they do not agree with you. Now that aside, saying that the company has their own personal coat of arms does help, but I'd also suggest looking for coverage about the company in reliable sources. (You'd also have to back up that the company has received a grant of arms, BTW.) I will be the first to admit that I'm not as familiar with heraldry as others would be, but I've seen evidence at other AfDs that having a coat of arms isn't enough in and of itself to warrant someone having an article. (See here, here, here for some examples of coats of arms that have been deleted or otherwise merged to other articles.) Basically, I think that it would be best to back up notability by looking for secondary, independent, reliable sources to show notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:00, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tokyogirl79. There was some back-up to the claim that they were granted arms, with links - until Yopie deleted them. You can see how I have dificulty assuming good faith when it looks as if the article is being setup to fail. That having been said, notability existed before the internet, before newspapers and magazines, before electricity. In fact people, places and organisations have been notable since the dawn of time. I have great difficulty in understanding the concept that only internet recognition is acceptable. The sphere of chivalry and coats of arms is a very niche market. The service that the Armorial Register provides is on a par to house or car insurance - providing a safety net in the event of ursurpation. We all have various insurances in our lives, but how many of us write articles about it in learned journals. But people will tweet, or facebook, or tumbler, or blog about the fact that they are now registered. But none of these are acceptable. I strikes me that the bar on notability is being set higher every year. If we were to grade existing articles by today's standards, how many would have to be deleted? If you want me to, I can quote dozens. Should we start a cull? I am going to re-insert the references and links that were deleted and hope that will suffice. Kiltpin (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that unfortunately there are a large amount of articles on Wikipedia that previously passed notability guidelines but would now fail those same guidelines because of the rules being updated to become more strict. It's not something I entirely agree with personally, as it makes it harder for me to add articles for topics that are extremely popular and/or known, yet haven't gained the coverage necessary to pass GNG (or the specific guideline). Basically, the guidelines got more strict in general because of various obviously non-notable topics (this one in particular is responsible for the stricter book guidelines) arguing for inclusion based upon previous guidelines. It's a shame that it happened, but it was sort of out of necessity. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely obvious that the main author of the article is one of the founders of said company. The often mentioned fact that Lord Lyon has granted this company a Coat of Arms shan't be overrated. Additionally, as the aforementioned main author of the article knows quite exactly, not all grants and sentences of Lord Lyon remain unchallenged. And not always the grantee will be happy in the end. —— Enough said: I vote for delete. SR-7v (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, this company published volume 1 of Burke's Peerage & Gentry International Register of Arms. Without prejudice to the question of notability, I suggest this page is a plausible redirect to Burke's Peerage, in which case it will not be elligible for deletion. James500 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@James500, unfortunately, the background of the edition of that particular work is somehow unclear, and by all means the things here in question may have not really so much to do with the REAL Burke's; apparently the "Armorial Register" company('s preceding firm) was merely renter of the 'Burke's "company name"' for a time (no Scottish/English legal dictionary at hand but I guess you understand what I want to express), see viz.: http://scotstitlesexposed.wordpress.com/2011/02/22/real-scots-internet-trolls-exposed/ —— there: the 2nd response "Auld Chiel says"; more details here: http://rec.heraldry.narkive.com/YgXYBV7f/armorial-register-puzzles SR-7v (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I daresay Kiltpin is trying to get cute with me! (Apologise the Americanism, James500 and, if you find I botched this phrase, Northamerica1000.) In deed, I am a bit annoyed that Kiltpin is not only trying to tell Tokyogirl79 quite a lot untruth regarding his very own role here, and his actual role in the world of Scottish heraldry & "clan council"-wise, but he's also trying, constantly, to slander that I would be a "sock puppet" (of Yopie, or of Kittybrewster), or that I would be even a "troll". — Really, Kiltpin is not just one "skeptical of anthropogenic global warming", but one person of remarkably "classy" methods. Ab Initio, belter! SR-7v (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, let's calm down here. I think that right now we need to focus on one thing: what we can do to improve the article and salvage it. I would recommend that all other disputes take place on the article's talk page or preferentially at WP:DRN. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tokyogirl79, thank you for your reaction. Of course, I'm endorsing your proposal — but there is a basic prerequisite: First of all, the aforementioned "Armorial Register" shall have removed all their self-styled "noblemen". To be more precise, I mean: Depending on whether the non-British "noblemen" who cannot be found in any notable publication ("Libro D'Oro", or "Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels", e.g.) have been removed, one can talk about notability of the company in question. But definitely not before that had happened. SR-7v (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fabricated notability through refs that aren't reliable. Edit warring appears to have continued into this AFD. Few policy based comments in the discussion above. Szzuk (talk) 22:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked for third-party coverage after declining the speedy, and again tonight. "Armorial" and "Register" aren't very discriminatory search terms in the context of heraldry, though, and I wasn't able to find anything I thought usable. Delete. —Cryptic 00:51, 22 November 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 15:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Science Academy[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. Only appears to have primary-sources about itself to promote itself. — Cirt (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a serious academic organization. I didn't see any advertisement . The only problem I can see is the inconsistency between the title and the lede which can be fixed.Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a uninterested party, it certainly seems to meet the criteria for deletion articulated by Cirt. However, if Nedim Ardoğa as a Turkish editor, has personal knowledge that this is a verifiable organization worth inclusion; I would ask that he/she provide a few edits to the page adding proper third-party sources substantiating the claims. @ytea _{say howdy!} 22:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. This organization appears to be a content fork of another organization, the former national academy that became discredited after it lost its independence, but it's too soon to see whether it will be fully accepted as the successor organization, and (like most academic societies, even the bigger and more well established ones) there are few if any sources that are independent of the organization itself. Instead of deleting, it might make sense to merge this content into Turkish Academy of Sciences. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nedim ardoga 78.144.245.50 (talk) 19:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is apparently intended as a equivalent to the Turkish Academy of Science that would not be under government control. It would appear to possibly be as significant as the official academy, and is of similar size.. DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG and others. Note the suggested searching on "The Science Academy" doesn't work well. Try also:

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

--do ncr am 18:29, 17 November 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. Secret ^account 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNS Vital Signs Computerized Neurocognitive Test[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I seem to be the last editor who was active on that article. I did a very diligent search for sources while looking for reliable, secondary sources about other neurological tests, with some of the better books at hand as I edited. This test was actually better represented in sources than some of the other tests I was looking up during the same round of editing. The article is plainly not spurious, there is notability established by sources independent of the test developers, and I have already tried to tone down the promotional tone of the article. (If I remember correctly, I added the advert tag.) That the article was created by someone who edits for a single purpose is a very good reason to be deeply skeptical of an article and to check its sources, but I'm not completely sure that that is a good reason to delete an article that currently does have some reliable sources and is about a topic that someone might legitimately want to look up (as confirmed by page traffic statistics). I'll watch for comments by other editors as this discussion continues, but my inclination is to rewrite for less promotional tone and to keep the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would it help to spell out CNS? It's Central Nervous System. This is about a computerized test that has several sources (significant secondary coverage). I have removed the reliance on primary sources template because there is a reference section with ten or so academic journals, which is pretty good in terms of secondary coverage. Many articles that are not discussed for deletion have nowhere near that quality of ref section. I see no reason to delete this only because the person who wrote it might have had a commercial interest. It is already tagged accordingly and needs a stylistic makeover. People who have to take one of these tests and their family will want to know about this test/platform and might actually look it up.--^Melody _Lavender 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG problems, as well as WP:PROMO. To be clear, this is not a specific test/instrument like ELISA, Bronchial challenge test, or Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV. This is a "battery" of tests under the product name "CNS Vital Signs". Note how we have articles on several of the more notable individual tests that this merely groups together. While there appear to be several journal articles that touch on this subject, many are primary. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a software topic, it's not about the medical tests. --^Melody _Lavender 09:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the software has only one purpose, and that is medical testing. There is only one sentence in the article discussing the software per se ("Technically, the platform runs on Windows, IOS and web environments.") and all of the rest of the content is about its medical use. The only sources in the article are medical journals or textbooks. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is about the software. The text is a summary of the functional specifications of the software. Comparing the text we're discussing here to the medical tests user Rhododentrites mentioned, like ELISA, shows that there's a huge difference. It is used by almost 10,000 physicians in over 50 or so countries (data from the company's website). And there are many more publications about many aspects of this product and its use in academic journals here. Plus we don't have guidelines on software notability. I'd say a major software for neurological testing would be a good example of notable software. --^Melody _Lavender 14:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about what the software does and how it is used, not the software itself. There is no technical information about the software itself - the article says nothing about what language it is coded in, any algorithms it runs, even about its various versions and how they are different, not anything about its interface. The article is entirely about how the software is used. If we followed your reasoning, Melody, we would treat articles about drugs as "chemistry" not medicine. It makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can agree it's about what the software does. The individual tests in this battery of tests and the principles they are based on existed before the software. The software just puts them in a different form. I agree, I and most other people on this planet think that pharmaceuticals are chemicals. Still, we can treat them as medical treatment. I'm not trying to move the article we're discussing out of the realm of medicine, just giving this discussion a reasonable perspective.--^Melody _Lavender 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hooray! Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) x2, replying to original message in response to my !vote: @Melody Lavender: This is a software topic, it's not about the medical tests. In your first response you repeatedly talked about a test, (This is about a computerized test / People who have to take one of these tests and their family will want to know), so let's not act like it's ridiculous to talk about it in the context of other tests if that's part of the rationale you're using to keep it. We don't have specific notability guidelines for software, hence WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It meets WP:GNG, and WP:PRODUCT basically says we should create an article about the company and move it there. There is nothing in those guidelines that forbids us to use our common sense. The product can be more notable than the company. It's not ridiculous to compare it to other tests, I didn't imply it was ridiculous. It does require abstract thinking. You can't compare it to those tests because the individual tests in this battery of tests and the principles they are based on existed before the software. The software puts them in a different form. --^Melody _Lavender 15:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched pubmed for any literature reviews or systematic reviews discussing the research that has been done with this product. There are 27 primary sources, but no secondary sources. (search for reviews is here; search for any articles is here). Since all policies and guidelines urge us to base articles on secondary sources, and there are no secondary sources describing the use of this product, nor its safety and efficacy, nor how important or unimportant it is in the field in which it used, we can't say much about it without doing WP:OR; we have no guide to assign appropriate weight to any claims about it or criticisms of it. The article seems to be WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're all secondary, unless one of the authors was involved in the development process. Primary sources about a software are the manual, func specs, the website of the company, press releases, and similar writings. All the sources you're citing are secondary, and they prove that the product is in use to a notable extent. You can not use these resources to write much about the software, all they do is provide a documentation of it's notability and some of its applications. The sources you are giving can only be considered primary for the experiments they are used in. Take this first (so random) result of the search you performed: [43] - this is a secondary source for the fact that the software is used for neuropsychological testing. But it's a primary source for the medical study on cognitive functioning in bipolar disorder. Jytdog (talk · contribs), maybe that's what confuses you?--^Melody _Lavender 16:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions all 27 articles in pubmed are primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm taking you naively serious here and assume you really are not joking and playing Peppermint Patty on us. The MedRS description isn't any different from a regular description of primary sources which you can look up in any encyclopedia. MedRS example: Filling the testube = writing the program.--^Melody _Lavender 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is not any encyclopedia. this is wiikipedia and "primary source" and "secondary source" for health related content are defined in MEDRS. when you signed up for a user account you agreed to abide by WP's policies and guidelines as part of the terms of use. they form the basis for rational discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now we have the final proof that Monty Python's parrot really isn't dead. You are kidding, aren't you? And for the terms of use aspect: Hello Patty! Funny. You can't be serious. The same thing as with the MedRes policy: Maybe you should read them. Might help or might not help. --^Melody _Lavender 06:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and, done here. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't try to pretend you ever started to discuss, it's all on record. Okay, maybe this was your attempt. You can't be serious. --^Melody _Lavender 06:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what any of your last several comments add to this discussion aside from making it about the editor rather than the subject. You said all the sources are secondary; Jytdog pointed to MEDRS to say they're primary. Then you started to call him/her Peppermint Patty and made Monty Python references as a response. Are you trying to say MEDRS doesn't apply, that you've reviewed the sources and they're secondary based on MEDRS...?--— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion between me and this editor has been going on for longer than just these few exchanges on this page. The editor has admitted before that he or she has no interest in this discussion but started "talking" again here. The editor is obviously still not interested in this discussion because the answers aren't to the point. I doubt that my postings were even read by this editor. Medical software is obviously a new topic with few precedents on Wikipedia. Primary sources are described in the MedRes policy in the same way as everywhere else. This editor thinks that the word "review" in the description on the policy page is some sort of special definition, a definition that applies only to Wikipedia. I don't think that is true. But the editor then takes it one step further and calls all, all other references primary that do not have the word review in the abstract. This might well be a sort of "group norm" in the medical community here on Wikipedia, even if it is, it's a misunderstanding. So much for the terminology issue. If we could get beyond the terminology issue, we could discuss the real issue: what can we accept as an adequate source for the notability of a medical software product? I think the editor might not be able to go beyond the assumption that the physicians are carrying out an experiment on this software as if the software were a laboratory rat. Which I don't think is true. We are trying to talk about unchartered territory. The editor doesn't want to acknowledge that and thinks I should just take the MedRES policy in this weird literal sense which I think is funny because a program is not a lab rat or at the very least not the lab rat in those sources. It's equivalent to the needle the lab rats are injected with. I unfortunately think that's funny and I tend to become cynical, obviously, so I'd better stop. Even if I stay out of such discussions, the problem behind it will not go away. There will be other medical software articles.--^Melody _Lavender 21:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that is not accurate Melody. I lost interest in discussing the topic further with you on my Talk page. Medical software is neither new nor rare. You do not understand MEDRS nor how we use it for health related topics, and are not interested in learning. I have no interest in arguing with you. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about books? There do appear to be practitioners' handbooks, which are also identified by WP:MEDRS as reliable secondary sources, that mention this particular test. A Google Books search turns up several of those, including one that is already used as a further reading reference in the article under discussion. Some instruments are discussed more in practitioners' handbooks than they are in review articles, but both kinds of reliable secondary sources are okay for sourcing a Wikipedia article on a medical topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Books are an even better source.--^Melody _Lavender 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

some of those books look like decent secondary or tertiary sources, yes. others, no. some are off target (having found "CNS" and "vital signs" separately) Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The technical discussions above seem to indicate good reasons for it. In my summary:

"Not about medical test... is a software" is a lame defence, because as the article explicitly describes that it "is used to measure brain function" which makes it succintly clear that it a biological/medical test. It does not mention the nature of the software, instead dwells directly on the medical applications, making it unambiguously a medical article. Its category finally then gives away.
The write-up itself is incredibly poor (in spite of the extensive energy put up in denfending it), and overlooks [WP:MOS]] and [WP:CS]] almost entirely. It is merely a set of list about the test. Chhandama (talk) 04:56, 23 November 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 21:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Guardian[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not sure what the rationale for deletion is. The article has 3 independent secondary sources. The content of these articles is not trivial or commercial. Therefore it meets the notability criteria. Needs a little rewording because of some promotional lingo. --^Melody _Lavender 12:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are all either primary, a database entry (inc), or about Gross not Medical Guardian. Could probably be speedied as unambiguous advertising. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Inc.com confirms the company exists, Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Business Journal are interviews with the company founder by regional news companies and Shipley is an article about the founder on a bloody school website. One cannot reasonably claim that this consists of significant, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources! The use of weasel words and lack of objectivity give credence to the nominator's assertion that this is WP:ARTSPAM. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:18, 20 November 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) 04:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global AIDS Walks[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unambiguous promotion. TeenAIDS-PeerCorps (same author) was speedily deleted under G11, this article qualifies as well. The article is pervasively biased to the extent that we should blow it up and start over again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I confirm that it is not apparent how this article meets WP:GNG or any other Wikipedia inclusion criteria for articles because the references both talk about the subject of this article and HIV/AIDS generally, so one can not easily see which references could establish notability, if any. For this article to be kept, one would need to find a few sources which are about the subject of this article but not published by the subject of the article. I cannot readily do this. The article is very promotional as it is now and if it could be kept, then I expect all but a few sentences of it would need to be deleted. I would prefer that this article could be cut to a stub, if it were found to be notable at all. There is no reason to delete it if in fact it is notable but with low-quality content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the appropriate notability guideline is WP:EVENTCRIT (which itself relies heavily on WP:GNG). Also, while I'm in favor of deleting the article on promotion-related grounds, if we're going to keep some of the content then it should be merged into John B. Chittick (which, not surprisingly, suffers from the same promotion-related defects, though I have confirmed that the subject is notable). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unambiguous advertising. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This isn't an article about a charity, this is a love letter detailing the noble heroism of the "jolly, friendly, and funny" Dr. John B. Chittick (Ed.D.) with his "bright Hawaiian shirts", who is "deadly serious about the need to prevent HIV" and sends postcards to his doners "because a picture is worth 1000 words". The tone and content is so wildly inappropriate as to be irredeemable. No prejudice against an independently-written, reliably-sourced article about the organisation but this glorified spam needs to be nuked. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional; this is G11 territory. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 20 November 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. J04n(talk page) 21:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Memorial Hospital[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 16:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Am barely convinced that this hospital exists, though perhaps there would be more Pakistani sources. No secondary coverage to be found whatsoever. Also the text is a copyvio from what looks like the hospital's Facebook page Cannolis (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 13 November 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. No strong consensus to keep or delete following two relistings. Article may be renominated after a suitable period. Philg88 ^♦talk 09:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Wu[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The refrences are currently as follows: (1) a report at Bloomberg businessweek which contains one brief mention of Kelvin Wu, stating only that he was hoping to be able to take over local competitors, (2) an announcement by the Securities and Futures Commission that they bannted Kelvin Wu King Shiu from re-entering the industry for two and a half years, and (3) a news report saying that he was thinking of expanding his business interests into new areas. None of this is the sort of substantial coverage that is needed. A search for sources produced press releases, thsi Wikipedia article, Twitter, business-promotion sites, more brief news reports about his business plans, etc, but nothing better. Note: A PROD was removed without any reason at all being given. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My reason for removing the PROD was that a previous editor had already withdrawn a nomination for speedy deletion on the basis of sources being found. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: My reason to support retaining this page is: although there is limit articles about Wu in English, there are plenty of articles in Chinese that support Wu is a notable person in Hong Kong and his importance on retain the business of HMV in Hong Kong area. Manhei.chiu (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC) signature added back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manhei.chiu (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then it is certainly a perfectly good reason for keeping the article. Can you point us to some of those articles? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles in chinese, which they mainly stated that Wu is the white knight to save HMV Hong Kong from bankruptcy. And how is he going to manage HMV in the future.Manhei.chiu (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sky post: http://www.skypost.hk/%E6%B8%AF%E8%81%9E/%E6%96%B0%E8%81%9E%E4%BA%8C%E6%A2%9D/20130301/001/%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AFHMV%E7%8D%B2%E7%99%BD%E6%AD%A6%E5%A3%AB%E6%89%93%E6%95%91/81861 Mingpao: http://tssl.mingpao.com/htm/marketing/hkbrand/cfm/mag3.cfm?File=20130415/mag/eca1_er.txt mpfinance: http://www.mpfinance.com/htm/finance/20130124/news/ec_ggb1.htm eastweek: http://eastweek.my-magazine.me/index.php?aid=26209

delete This article was created by WP:SPA user Kelvin Wu Kin Shiu kwks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. seems a self promotion and not enough for WP:N and WP:GNG - Krutim 11:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Linford[edit]

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

The article reads like a resume and is very poorly referenced. He has written may articles but that's what an academic is supposed to do - I doubt he'd pass WP:PROF. Plus, the fact that this is an orphan article would imply that he's not really that notable. (Please note that this page was recently de-PRODed with the request that it be taken though Afd instead, I assume this waves the normal limitation about taking de-PRODed pages straight to Afd). Project Osprey (talk) 09:53, 28 October 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 October 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - this is a bad Promo article of an Associate Prof. that uses primary sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. The patents I found and the contribution to a 1996 Cambridge University paper (here) could be promising if there was an expert who could discern if the subject has made some kind of unique discovery or impact but those alone aren't enough. EBY (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed that the subject was named a Fellow of AVS. It seems like a decently selective distinction, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to know whether AVS is considered a major scholarly organization like ACS or IEEE for purposes of meeting WP:PROF. It was easy to de-orphan the entry by a WP search; Linford's company developed a technology called M-DISC. I've started cutting down the promotional/resume-like tone, though that is an issue separate from notability. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 02:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GScholar seems to give an h-index of about 28, which might well not be enough in itself to meet WP:PROF#1 in this field. However, one of his papers has over 1000 citations and another over 600. Perhaps someone with a bit more expertise on citation counts could take a look? PWilkinson (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The high citation counts for his papers on Google scholar look like a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PROF C1 is still mystifying in a lot of ways, but Linford is at an h-index of 29, and primary author on his top two papers, one cited over 1k. No one has called this unexceptional for the chemistry field. I also found another paper that refers to this top paper as "pioneering":
In particular, the covalent attachment of 1-alkenes and 1-alkynes onto hydride-terminated Si(100) and Si(111) has seen a wealth of research activity starting from the pioneering work of Linford and Chidsey (Alkyl monolayers covalently bonded to silicon surfaces, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 1993, 115(26), 12631–12632).
— http://pubs.rsc.org.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/en/content/articlehtml/2010/cs/b923890p
Looks like it passes PROF considering this citation count to be high, and with noted impact on the field. czar ♔ 14:40, 23 November 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. Randykitty (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Health New England[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and no evidence is presented that subject meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The company actually has some notability for hiring disadvantaged people and for its CEO Maura McCaffrey. Not enough for a standalone article (McCaffrey wrote one industry book, the hiring practices garnered a couple of articles) but definitely deserves to be merged under the parent company Baystate Health. EBY (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no notability feature in the article. I oppose the above suggestion since there is no mention of "disadvantaged people" and not a page of Maura McCaffrey (not even a mention in the text) to merge to. Chhandama (talk) 04:11, 23 November 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) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) @ 15:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Advanced Materials[edit]

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

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG - there's another academic center of the same name in Lowell that has similar cites, so sifted through both and neither is notable for an article. EBY (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs substantial rewriting. Such free-standing centers can be appropriate for an article. DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs major work. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 13 November 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. There are three calls to keep, three to delete, and two to merge with Chris Galvin. The issue rests on how much coverage the subject gets separate from his restaurants and his brother. Sources have been found which provide "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and though the significance and independence of some of the sources have been questioned, enough remains to satisfy normal Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Some of the doubt regarding the suitability of the subject arises from the creation of the article by an acknowledged paid editor, but that's not a criteria for deletion. While there may be a case for the article to be merged with Chris Galvin - perhaps under a new umbrella title, that should be a discussion for Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. I hovered with closing this as No consensus, but as it has been argued that the subject meets WP:GNG, and there is a feature interview with him in The Independent, then Keep seems most appropriate. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Galvin[edit]

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

This article is about a chef who appears to have no notability independent of his brother, Chris Galvin, who is himself a borderline case. The article was created by User:G2003, a paid editor. He inflated the appearance of notability by citing the same sources over and over again. One of the sources was written by Chris Galvin, and it seems like Jeff gets only passing mention (if any) in the others. Sammy1339 (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has problems, but the subject passes WP:BIO. Some sources: On him and his brother (major pieces which are not about Chris with Jeff tacked on, but about both): The Guardian in 2005, The Guardian in 2006, The Guardian in 2009, The Telegraph in 2009. Sources about Jeff in particular: 2013 profile in the Independent, Slow Food UK, Hotel Management International. These were really easy to find, in just the first couple pages of ghits. It looks like in the late 2000s he was an up-and-comer while his brother was gaining success but now he seems to get just as much. Given all of this, which doesn't even count articles about his restaurants (at least one of which is Michelin-starred), it seems an easy pass of WP:BIO. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian in 2005 - I will grant this appears to be a good source. The Guardian in 2006 - This is primary (written by Jeff Galvin). The Guardian in 2009 - passing mention only. The Telegraph in 2009 - passing mention only. 2013 profile in the Independent - possibly also a good source, except it's only an interview with him, with no commentary, so it's not clear that it's not primary. Slow Food UK - I think this is an advertizement? Correct me if I'm wrong. Hotel Management International - primary source (written by Jeff Galvin.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian in 2009 - passing mention only. The Telegraph in 2009 - passing mention only - ? Both of these have his picture or his family's picture as the main image for the article. In the second one his name is part of the title. It's primarily about the restaurant, yes, but framed in the context of his accomplishment, or that he is responsible for its success. Not as good as the others, but certainly not a passing mention. You are indeed correct about a couple of them being written by him, which I didn't notice. So those don't count as secondary coverage. However, it does say something that he was able to publish these pieces in such publications -- something that wouldn't be the case for the vast majority of [non-notable] chefs. It's not a secondary source, but it's not nothing, in other words. Regardless, there are multiple good sources, and even these we're differing on are still top-tier publications for a chef. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the passing mentions, he is literally only mentioned by name once in each of those articles, as "... with his brother Jeff ..." and "... and Jeff ...". I'm not contesting that his brother is notable. Yes, he is in the picture, but so are other people, and anyway we can't cite a picture. Regarding the primary sources, yes they're useful if he turns out to be notable enough for an article, but primary sources can't be used to establish notability. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Top banana at L'Escargot (and others) is as good as it gets in culinary circles. Shame he hasn't had a show on daytime TV, as he'd then be a shoo-in for WP tastes. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, on the basis I disagree fundamentally with the analysis of Rhododendrites above. Articles are about the restaurants, or Chris Galvin, with Jeff 'tacked on'. Chris Galvin seems to have his name over the restaurant door (according to the decent 2005 Guardian article). As already pointed out, the 2006 article is written by Jeff. The author of this Wikipedia article is a paid editor and adept at the 'smoke and mirrors' tactic of adding all sorts of passing mentions (or articles about different things) to give a superficial look of 'notability'. Jeff, unfortunately, fails WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support WP:CSD#DELETE_AS_PAID_EDITOR, but I can't see it either gaining support, or as being workable (the editor here at least admits what they're doing; many others just hide).

I support keep here because I think that a priori, a chef who reaches the pinnacle of cuisine should be seen as a notable chef. Same as for surgeons and baseball players. These restaurants, and being a head chef within them rather than a commis, are such a pinnacle. That meets WP:N. Now we need WP:V. The newspaper columns aren't perfect, but they're enough for this. Are there any trade journals for catering? What do they say?

I don't see this article as anywhere near perfect - and if I'd paid money to a paid editor for this, I'd be most unimpressed! However I think this one, probably the only one of those I've seen in this batch, is about a subject (not an editor!) who does belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no consensus that chefs are automatically notable, as far as I'm aware. Surely notable chefs are ones that have received significant independent coverage, or won awards? Sionk (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So they need to win awards, like maybe a Michelin star - which is what both Galvin at Windows and La Chapelle have done. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as any issue of notability will affect both brothers indistinguishably, I've added Chris Galvin to this AfD. My keep applies to both. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed Chris Galvin, you can't seriously add another article to the AfD halfway through the process. Chris Galvin gets much more coverage than Jeff (for what reason I'm not sure - because he wears the trousers/is a better chef??). Suggest you nominate him separately if you have issues with that article. Sionk (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: Per the above, I have removed the AfD template from the Chris Galvin article, as per the removal of the subject from this discussion by User:Sionk (diff, diff). Of note is that removal of the subject from this discussion has not been contested by User:Andy Dingley. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The refs look weak so my keep vote is weak. Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The restaurants may be notable but I'm not impressed by the depth of coverage in the sources.--Adam in MO Talk 07:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chris Galvin – If this brother's notability is not clearly distinct from his brother's, why try to create and maintain a separate article? —BarrelProof (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Chris Galvin per BarrelProof. Sous chefs are no material for encyclopedias. Moreover, the article suffers from WP:Orphan if we forget his brother’s article. Jeff5102 (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? He's rather more than a sous chef. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient reliable sources per Sammy1339's analysis above. Article reads like a resume. Paid editing fundamentally has no place here. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Paid editing fundamentally has no place here."

If that's true, then WP:CSD#PAID_ARTICLE should become a valid reason for deletion of itself. AFAIK, that's not the case at present. Is that a direction we want to go in? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it was up to me, yes. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And this kind of flimsy, promotional, cynically deceptive paid editing, definitely!! Sionk (talk) 13:09, 26 November 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-admin closure) Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (converse) @ 15:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vasel[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion - subject not notable. All the references seem self-referential. Wikipedia notability guide mentions that a subject needs to be mentions in multiple, major media to be considered notable. This subject has simply self-published a number of reviews online. 96.51.198.182 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination. ansh666 03:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BIO. This piece on Wired.com starts with "If you like board games, you’ve probably seen (or at least heard of) Tom Vasel." Then there were this other one from Wired (which also uses him as a source). Then Rock Paper Shotgun (which also makes frequent mention of him and his reviews in their Cardboard Children series, e.g. "the great Tom Vasel" here, "my favourite board game reviewer", here, "my hero Tom Vasel"), This profile at scottking.info. The kickstarter for his 10th season brought in 134k. There seems to be an unusual level of respect and adoration for this guy (I'd never heard of him), and I'm not going to link to a ton of unreliable sources but many small gaming sites seem to treat his reviews as an event (like that food/arts critic who has a big influence on the success or failure of a restaurant or play). That's the impression I'm getting anyway. It's not entirely clear to me whether it should be The Dice Tower or Vasel with the WP article, but it can always be moved to the former. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - the article at Wired is a blog entry, not a serious media article. It looks like a fluff piece that could even be a personal friend of Tom's, or perhaps even a sock puppet. Rock-Paper-Shotgun is also a blog-type site, not a serious media outlet. I'm not seeing any real serious mention of his work in bonafide media. Is Wikipedia at the point where bloggers can mention each other and thereby qualify each other for article status here?96.51.198.182 (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 96.51.198.182 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Yes, but it is a blog at Wired (see WP:NEWSBLOG). There are lots of ways of assessing reliable sources and there are gray areas that vary based on context. Wired blogs help to establish notability. Likewise RPS is one of the most well-known game websites and thus contributes to notability. The "maybe a friend of his wrote it," since it's not based on anything, doesn't affect the significance of the source, of course. Also, your nomination for deletion is your vote, so which you can and should comment, you can do that by adding a bolded "comment" to start a line rather than "delete". --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck the duplicate !vote above from the nominator. Only one !vote is allowed, which your deletion nomination is considered as. However, feel free to comment in the discussion all you'd like. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Per above discussion, WP:NEWSBLOG actually says "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." Note that the people being cited as sources are not even identifying themselves as "professionals" in any sense of the word, much less each other. If no one with any credibility or credentials are noticing this guy, how is he notable?198.161.2.211 (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's unusual to have two anonymous users with IP addresses that geolocate to the same place argue the letter of a particular policy against AfD precedent... I'll wait for others to weigh in before continuing the thread, compiling sources, etc. as I have a hard time seeing this as anything but an easy keep. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet culture-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It almost sounds like the delete voters (or voter) are hypothesizing that there's a conspiracy by Wired to manufacture notability for this person, and that anyone who thinks he actually is well-known is simply mistaken. Let's consider the simpler hypothesis that Tom Vasel is notable and well-known and that's why he's written about. rspεεr (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative hypothesis would be that Tom Vasel does not meet Wikipedia's notability threshold which is why there's so little information about him in reliable sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the subject is a math teacher in Florida who is a board game enthusiast and has a website with a bi-weekly podcast where he reviews board games. His passion for the subject may be laudable but it has not made him notable. Passionate people who freely provide information and show deep bench of knowledge on their subjects can be well known WITHOUT meeting GNG because simply being well-known does not equal notability. The Wired article (blog or not) does not speak to the subject as an expert in the field or his notability - the article is a fundraiser for a charity dedicated to his deceased son. EBY (talk) 05:22, 3 November 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 03:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Tom Vasel is very well known in the hobby board game community. He has founded the Dice Tower Network and has helped to bring people into the hobby. Hobbes543 (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be true but doesn't address the concerns over his notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After looking at the links on the article and in this AFD, I cannot consider GNG to be met. The sources are too borderline and provide little in the way of in-depth analysis anyway. As for being "well-known", there are many people who are widely-recognised in certain circles and yet would not fit our definition of notability. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found by Rhododendrites meet the GNG--we've got sources largely about this person and his work that are reliable and independent. I'm good. Notability on Wikipedia is about sourcing, not being an expert in a field. We've got the sourcing. It's not clear to me why these sources are boarderline--a column in Wired is a RS. Hobit (talk) 11:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not meet GNG: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.". ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:20, 22 November 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 subject of the article is verifiable, and there is information available on him. However, the consensus is that at the moment there isn't quite enough to meet Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As the subject may become notable, or further sources may be found that indicate notability, I would be happy to do a Wikipedia:Userfication on request. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Zrnic[edit]

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

I strongly question the notability of this person (also per tagging). Page is very promotional in language. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He got into his local newspaper when he was 15, but coverage is very thin. Even if he is potentially notable, which I kind of doubt, this article has very little salvageable text in it. It's full of unsubstantiated claims (which I can't substantiate via Google) and promotion. The article does claim an award, but Google does not return any relevant results for this (including Graphis Inc.'s own web site). Any hits that I've been able to find have been trivial mentions, such as photo credits in reliable sources. The articles themselves do not seem to be about him. It's too soon to create an article on this person. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appreciate the evaluation for the Milan Zrnic page. I’m an educator in Europe and felt compelled to create a page for Zrnic when I discovered he has very little online presence. He is extremely respected in several industries and has clearly chosen to remain private with regards to online press and online documentation. This actually seems to be a trend with emerging artists. Is there a way cultural figures like him can have accessible and encyclopedic biographies without internet-specific press? I know it would help several students engage with a contemporary curriculum. In the art world, credits and affiliations are essentially citations—if only because most artists are associated with movements and styles. It is uncommon to have a newspaper article or cultural institution specifically profile an artist unless they have reached a mature stage of their career. Perhaps this is why the verbiage in my page skews promotional? I was hoping to add several artist pages like Zrnic's, but now feel discouraged with the negative feedback. Stephenphoto (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments and questions for Stephenphoto: (1) It's not clear to me that "he has clearly chosen to remain private with regards to online press and online documentation". Or is the person who uses Instagram merely an unrelated namesake? Another possibility that occurs to me is that people running other websites just aren't interested. (2) Web sources aren't necessary; people -- though not necessarily "cultural figures like him" -- can have biographies on the strength of what's published about them on paper. What sources on paper can you offer? (3) I decided to take a look at his website. Its top page is blank. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: For artists who have an anti-mainstream sensibility, how do you suggest they receive their due Wikipedia entries? Anti-mainstream sensibility can very well mean engaging lightly with social media and not on an archival plane (personal website). Hardcopy evidence is abundant, but other users have said the information must be immediately accessible to the average person. Not a very sound practice for Wikipedia, as publications and journals are very often localized to regions and continents of the world. Should I be scanning these materials and archiving them on a website for every artist that needs to be added into this database? If I do, I feel as if the citation will be killed for being an unreliable source. As I said before, credits and affiliations hold more value in these subjects, for all artists are a part of a greater movement or style of work...and these movements are more traditionally embraced in encyclopedic form. Would it be more acceptable to attach the contemporary artists I'd like to create entries for onto existing entries for their respective movements and styles?

As I mentioned to another user, I'm unsure of "emerging" considered a red flag, or "too soon" being a valid debate. We live in a world where emerging artists, activists, and politicians are more important to contemporary curriculum than notable and established figures. I'm sure you've recognized this. Not interested in creating an online presence for contemporary artists, but interested in creating articles that will undoubtedly grow and evolve in the next year as their notability becomes more apparent to the general public. Stephenphoto (talk) 7:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

For artists who have an anti-mainstream sensibility, how do you suggest they receive their due Wikipedia entries? Their sensibility doesn't directly determine their notability (in the sense which the word is used hereabouts). ¶ Anti-mainstream sensibility can very well mean engaging lightly with social media and not on an archival plane (personal website). Zrnic has a website but seems to have kept it blank for some time. Before it was blank (eg on 19 February 2008), it hardly scintillated. Zrnic or his namesake uses Instagram, showing what seem to me very conventional fashion photos. Of course I don't purport to be a judge of the quality of fashion photos, and defer to the judgment of people who know. Where is this? (Or is Instagram-using Zrnic a different Zrnic?) ¶ other users have said the information must be immediately accessible to the average person No. For example, information published in Serbian periodicals would be acceptable if these were available in Serbian libraries. Of course, most people have no access (or at best, difficult and expensive access) to Serbian libraries; but if people in Serbia have access, that's enough. ¶ Would it be more acceptable to attach the contemporary artists I'd like to create entries for onto existing entries for their respective movements and styles? No, it probably wouldn't. ¶ We live in a world where emerging artists, activists, and politicians are more important to contemporary curriculum than notable and established figures. I'm sure you've recognized this. Actually I haven't, no. Certainly, some "emerging" people will soon enough be of major importance. Well, wait till they have emerged. If you think that an "emerging" person really is of outstanding significance despite (or even as suggested by) the little attention paid to him or her, and think that this person merits publicity, excellent: write them up in a blog entry or similar. But not here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thorough response but it is not as objective as you hope for it to be. I am left with more questions than answers! Upon reviewing your user page, I have discovered that we mention Zrnic's work in our curriculum alongside some of the artists you have created articles for. In fact, there are several artists I was hoping to create articles for that reference the artists you are passionate about. Looking forward to bridging the gap. -- Stephenphoto (talk) 06:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link here to your curriculum? It would be fascinating. -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User above raises valid concerns. Does not warrant scrutiny. Citations in original entry are legitimate, perhaps could use a few more credits or "affiliations" to further current notability. criticalwiki (talk) 10:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first and so far only edit by "criticalwiki". -- Hoary (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's a designer and photographer who's verifiably of some minor notability; but the web offers so little about him that the article seems desperate. Meanwhile, although one contributor alludes above to the existence of sources beyond Google's reach, nothing is forthcoming. If this is person is "emerging", wait until he has emerged. -- Hoary (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it seems that at the moment we do not have reliable sources demonstrating notability, and the keep votes are not based on policies.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing approaching reliable sources directly detailing applied or found in a reasonable search. While it's possible offline sources exist, none are presented so far in this process. BusterD (talk) 20:46, 26 November 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 Civil decorations of Pakistan. Sandstein 20:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orders, decorations, and medals of Pakistan[edit]

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

Content of this article has been covered quite well in Awards and decorations of the Pakistan Armed Forces and Civil decorations of Pakistan, there seems no use of this article, besides this, the article in its current form requires a lot of cleanup and improvement as per Wiki Standards. ow@!s (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, just a list of medals that are already covered in these other two articles in much more detail. Could be speedily done under A10 if this article weren't 3 years old. Cannolis (talk) 13:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the term is still search worthy. Since the title doesn't indicate military, Civil decorations of Pakistan is the right redirect. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:46, 20 November 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 Sonata Arctica. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pasi Kauppinen[edit]

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

per WP:MUSIC. Transwiki-ied article that should be redirected to Sonata Arctica Avono♂ (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sonata Arctica. Did a firehose search of 55 ProQuest databases as an example with my class today—found two Spanish-language articles that only mentioned the subject in passing. Redirect to band. Probably could have been redirected with little fanfare (also AfD is for deletion only—noms that propose actions other than deletion are eligible for speedy keep). czar ♔ 18:02, 19 November 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 Roehl Transport. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Roehl[edit]

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

I'm unable to find "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" in either the sources provided or searches. Primarily, I find first-party content; passing, trivial mentions as the founder of the business; a few trucking industry mentions; and a couple articles about donating money to a local library. I don't believe sources listed in the article or found via search engines show the subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Stesmo (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Roehl_Transport, which then also should be considered for AfD. Note: article created and solely edited by an SPA who also created the Roehl Transport article, and also added Roehl Transport to other articles. LaMona (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Roehl Transport but disagree that the company's article should deleted (it is a major transport carrier with plenty of independent sources). The minimal content in this article is enough for a section in the company article on the company's leaders. Royal broil 14:27, 15 November 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. Sandstein 20:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Tripathi (botanist)[edit]

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

Not a notable person. The page is constructed without any authentic references. Google search did not prove the notability Jussychoulex (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Curcuma prakasha. For a stand-alone article, the subject likely fails guidelines at WP:ACADEMIC. - Location (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would defer to Plantdrew's opinion on the redirect as he is an expert in this area. - Location (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this individual doesn't meet notability guidelines. I very much oppose redirecting to Curcuma prakasha; Tripathi has also described at least 4 other species of plants: Amomum garoense, Amomum jainii, Amomum vermanum and Hornstedtia arunachalensis. Plantdrew (talk) 21:31, 18 November 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) Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Loïc Nottet[edit]

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

per WP:MUSIC, only meets criteria 12. Avono♂ (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. He doesn't even meet criteria 12 of WP:MUSIC (or, god forbid, if he did that would mean every contestant on a reality TV singing competition getting an entry on Wikipedia). Several Belgium newspapers have reported the announcement about Eurovision [44][45][46] but none of them give any biographical info other than saying he was a finalist on The Voice Belgique. I'd describe it as a WP:ONEEVENT situation at the moment and, maybe, the article could be re-created when Nottet has actually done something beyond reality TV. Sionk (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Several reliable Eurovision websites confirm that the artist will be representing Belgium at the biggest music contest - Eurovision Song Contest. And you cannot get any more official confirmation than Eurovision.tv, the contest's official website. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 17:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep - clearly notable via reliable sources for his Eurovision participation. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough has been said. It's also worth taking into account that all artists participating in the Eurovision Song Contest gets massive coverage before the contest, during the contest, and after the contest. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Notable through taking part in Eurovision, as all Eurovision participants get their own articles. Also took part and placed in the biggest music contest in Belgium. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a country's Eurovision rep is enough to meet notability--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cannot understand why this has been relisted when it is clearly a snowball clause to keep the article, especially when additional sources have been provided to show notability! Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 16:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wesley Mouse: At the time the discussion was relisted (prior to the two !votes that follow it), consensus was not existent for snow article retention as you state above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were Three !votes for Keep with rationales. Had it been one Keep and three Delete !votes it would have been deleted. I just find it odd. (no reflection on you Northamerica1000).--BabbaQ (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I for one can't understand all the 'Keep' votes which suggest he's already participated in Eurovision. They're plainly confused or misguided. Sure, if he eventually takes part in 2015 he will undoubtedly get a lot of coverage. But that's for the future, not now. Sionk (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has suggested that he has already participated. They are stating that because he has been confirmed for ESC that participation and honor gives him notability, and so has been the standard over the years on Wikipedia. ESC is notable for singers/bands that are confirmed as participants.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As long as he is confirmed as the Belgian singer in Eurovision 2015, he should of course have his own article - as have all other contestants. But perhaps the article should omit informations that are not sourced. F.e. there is no source to his day of birth. Aejsing (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Eduria III[edit]

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

Non notable biography. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 6 November 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 01:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film student and apprentice to a director. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto as above--Mevagiss (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assistant directors and interns are too common to be notable, absent a casting couch scandal, which is absent here. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to God of War: Ascension. Article was unredirected by User:Salvidrim!/Macy VG IP vandal, a long-term abuser. I am closing this in the spirit of WP:CSD#G5 and restoring + protecting the redirect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 01:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

God of War IV[edit]

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

No indication that this actually exists. Almost all sources talking about "God of War IV" are really referring to God of War: Ascension. There was some fan speculation, but that's it. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the Bronx[edit]

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

As a major contributor, I'm not confident this satisfies the general notability guideline. Each secondary source gives only trivial mentions or citation of the subject. ₂₃W 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as each secondary (many of which are pretty big name in the ratings biz, such as TV by the Numbers of the Futon Critic) cites him as an "expert" for Nielsen ratings. I hardly think ascribing ratings info to him counts as "trivial" mention (he's being credited with numbers... there's not much else you can expand upon with raw data). Also, he's consistently cited, and not just from one site, but many.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gen. Quon: I mean trivial in the sense that coverage is only limited to a byline or a reference to him. This isn't a matter of him being a reliable source (I'm still convinced he is, but the site is currently being challenged at WT:TV; perhaps you'd like to comment?). ₂₃W 00:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, I see. Yeah, I commented.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. Dcbanners (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly noteworthy and encyclopedic and educational. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 13 November 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.

[1]