Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 September	4 September >

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 Procedural close. No rational for deletion. Not sure what this is Bgwhite (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Shikayat Kendra[edit]

Public - complaint Center 0775 - 2249311 249340 Automated Public Grievances Redressal System Jan Shikayat Kendra basically is an Automatic Public Grievances Redressal System, Which Operates on 30 PRI {Primary Rate Interface} Lines and Established by Honorable Minister Shri Amar Agrawal, With The Objective of :-

To enable people of Bilaspur Development of Bilaspur Bilaspur and Chhattisgarh to easily Register and Track There Complaints Related with bilaspur Development of Bilaspur Bilaspur My Neta Info Vidhansabha in General and Ministry of Health and Urban in Particular.

To enable Common Men to be in Reach and in Connection with his Minister even without Spending a Single Penny.
To insure the speedy timely and problem free solution of Multiple Public Complaints through a Single Window.

The System Works as a Bridge between the Common Man and his Elected Representative. It Operates on 30 Toll Free Numbers, Which are as; from 07752-249311 to 249340. On These Numbers anyone can Give a Miss Call after which The Pri System Responses Automatically. Immediately after The Welcome Note one Hears a Sound of beep. Which is a Sign to Register the Complaint or Suggestion?

At present Shri Amar Agrawal ji is holding the Portfolio of Health and Family Welfare, Health Education, Taxation and Urban department well known for innovative use of Technology for Public Welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaragrawalchattisgarh (talk • contribs) 10:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Stintz mayoral campaign, 2014[edit]

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

Content fork for the campaign of a minor political candidate who dropped out after receiving 2% or less support in public opinion polls. Downwoody (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really can't see the point in any campaign articles for elections to a third tier body or post, but especially if she's not even going to contest the election (she may not even pass WP:POLITICIAN, plus aside from one small bit about voice lessons, her article reads like it's written by a publicist). I would also support the deletion of all the other campaign articles and just have a campaign section in the mayoral election article. Number 5 7 14:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto is in the narrow range of internationally famous metropolitan world cities for which serving on the city council is considered sufficient basis for an article under WP:NPOL (it's actually specifically named in WP:POLOUTCOMES as one of the canonical examples of cities whose councillors qualify), and her battles with Rob Ford over transit policy in the past council term would likely be sufficient to get her past NPOL #3 ("Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") even if serving on Toronto City Council weren't already accepted as a legitimate notability claim in its own right. So her article definitely needs improvement, but she does pass NPOL — though, of course, that still doesn't mean we need to maintain this spinoff article. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I wondered whether the coverage of her might help her pass #3 but when I searched I only got local papers. TBH, as a London resident, I'm rather surprised that London Assembly members are typically kept... Number 5 7 20:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was never particularly crazy about the idea of spinning out separate standalone articles for each individual candidate's campaign, but opted not to take on the responsibility of actively nominating them for deletion at the time. Simply put, we don't need this much forked content for a municipal election — I suppose I might be wrong, but I don't think we've kept separate spinoff articles for any individual candidate's individual campaign in any other municipal election before this one (either in Toronto or anywhere else). This, and all four of its other siblings in Category:Toronto mayoral election, 2014 candidates, should indeed be deleted — important campaign announcements certainly merit mention in the main article on the election itself and/or in the candidates' standalone bios, but we don't need these as an extra layer of articles. (I will grant that since the others are still active candidates rather than withdrawn ones as Stintz is, they should be nominated separately rather than being added to this nomination or deleted solely on the basis of the consensus established here — but we still don't need standalone articles about their campaigns.) Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and the same for all of the Toronto Mayoral Campaign articles. WP:NOTNEWS, right? PK T(alk) 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about this campaign article and there's already a section on the campaign in her individual article. 131.118.229.17 (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. How is a story about a single non-starting local election campaign anywhere near notable enough for an article? Bearian (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement with delete arguments. Alaney2k (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Candidates (band)[edit]

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

A band with just 1 album. I think the only thing that makes it somewhat notable is how it looks like the members did other things later. But other then that nothing. Wgolf (talk) 23:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow talk 20:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references provided, and I can't find any coverage or resources about The New Candidates. I think WP:INHERITORG applies here, because, as Wgolf mentions, the members were involved in notable projects later on, but that fact doesn't make this group notable. Upjav (talk) 18:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrow (Deathgaze song)[edit]

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

This seems like a page that could just be redirected to this band. Has basically a one line summary about the song that actually sounds like a one line review. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Text is part gibberish anyway ("Becoming more depth and expression, was one of the attractive things change skillfully mixed.") Imaginatorium (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. No obvious need to leave a redirect page either. --DAJF (talk) 23:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This only reached #130 on the Oricon Singles Chart, and charted for only one week.[1] I can't find much coverage other than blog reviews [2]. Michitaro (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sacch Ka Saamna. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sacch Ka Saamna (season 2)[edit]

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

No info on this shows 2nd season-probably could just be merged to the main page for this show. Wgolf (talk) 23:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect no significant coverage in reliable sources about the season. and the source can be used to actually help establish the notability for main series article which is pretty poor itself. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-And considering how many bigger shows sometimes don't have season pages is another sign of this. Wgolf (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and~~ redirect per TRPOD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect. Whatever was useful in the article is already added to the target article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Strong consensus in favour of keep Philg88 ^♦talk 15:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Illusions[edit]

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

Its first product is still under development. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 02:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This was one of the top tech kickstarters ever, raising over $1 million, which was 263% of its goal [see all-time tech kickstarters here] and has been widely reported on by Bloomberg Businessweek, Engadget, TheVerge, TomsHardware, GizMag, and a number of foreign outlets. It is also notable by dint of its founders, Jeri Ellsworth and Rick Johnson both notable veterans of the industry. 47.18.34.63 (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep One of the worst AfD nominations I've seen, made all the more surprising by the editor that nominated it. There is no policy-related problem with the article - why is it even here? In fact, it is very well researched and finely crafted. I would respectfully request that this nomination be withdrawn as soon as possible. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate and Speedy and Permanent Keep Whoever proposed the deletion of the article has not performed due dilligence to assure reasons for article to be deleted. Technical Illusions is a licensed Washington state business per Washington State Department of Licensing database. Technical Illusions was created by founders Jeri Ellsworth, chip designer responsible for designing the Commodore 64 30 games in 1 Direct to TV joystick, the CommodoreOne (later to be named "C-One Reconfigurable computer".... a simple Google search and due diligence research will clearly indicate the validity of source such as webpages from http://www.c64upgra.de/ and existing Wikipedia pages about Jeri Ellsworth. However, this entry isn't about Jeri Ellsworth directly but about the company "Technical Illusions" and a summary description of products being developed and in the future, produced by Technical Illusions. Currently, their first product line is under development with specifications not yet released to Kickstarter backers. However, products indicated may in the future have more detailed wikipedia pages in more detailed discussion of the products like castAR glasses as maybe appropriate for viewers of Wikipedia articles/pages. Both founders have credible and recognized industry experience in hardware and software development.It is therefore my recommendation that the article to be kept and in time amended as more information becomes available for the intellectual and informational interests of Wikipedia readers as well as retain reasonable quality of information which shall be fair. Technical Illusions is a new start-up company which will become a prominent market player in the market & research sectors regarding augmented reality and virtual reality. --- This entry has been entered by Richard Balkins of Wavestar Interactive ( a kickstarter backer of castAR AR/VR glasses and supporter and to extent an independent software developer for Technical Illusions products under development. Time/Date Stamp: August 24, 2014 at 10:49PM U.S. Pacific Coast time via my Wikipedia account. RickAstoria (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the creator of the article, I want to add that it's disappointing to see that an administrator who has been around for so many years decided to nominate this article, only two months after the article has been accepted, on the sole ground that the company's product is still under development. I thought the company warranted its own article given its successful Kickstarter and founders, and significant third-party coverage. I tried to make everything in the article verifiable and used reliable sources. There's no conflict of interest: I have nothing to do with the company, in fact didn't even back their Kickstarter project. After many years of trying to improve Wikipedia from various IP addresses, I must admit that the ease with which articles are being nominated for deletion from Wikipedia still surprises and demotivates me. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a policy-based reason for the requested deletion? I am not seeing one in the nom.[3] Per WP:ORG the standard of notability would seem to be met, because of the existence of independent sources. If there is some other basis for deletion though, perhaps the nominator could provide it? In the long run, if the company never creates a product, perhaps this article should be merged into the Jeri Ellsworth article, but in the meantime it seems to be adequately sourced. --El on ka 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Marginally notable tech company. After reading all of the linked sources included within the article, I believe that the subject probably satisfies the specific notability guideline for companies per WP:ORG and the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG, but contrary to some of the outraged "keep" comments above, it's a relatively close call. Why? Because most of the linked sources are about the subject company's product(s), not primarily or even significantly about the company itself. This is an article about the subject company, not its product(s); therefore, I am looking for significant (i.e., not trivial, not WP:ROUTINE, not incidental) coverage of the company, its officers, its financial backers, its finances, its history, its long-term prospects, etc., and not solely about its product(s). If the product is notable, then perhaps the product should have a stand-alone Wikipedia article, but the subject company must be notable in its own right per our notability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer some of the objections above, in no particular order: (1) A successful kickstarter means that a company has money to try to do something significant--a reference reporting it id a routine financial announcement, not a source for notability. (2) The notability of a firm consists of producing notable products, as reflected by the sources, or otherwise doing something that is worth being covered. The simplest phrase for the situation, a very frequent one for attempts at WP articles, seems to be "not yet notable". (3) The standard of notability is not having independent sources, the standard is having substantial i=coverage in reliable independent sources. Substantial coverage has to be about something more than mere existence. I don't think any of the sources provide it, because there's nothing substantial to cover at this point. (4) We have been in the habit recently in accepting articles of firms that have done no more than raise money --I think the policy based reason for rejecting them , is NOT DIRECTORY, which is the basic policy which is implemented by the notability guideline. (5) That the founders are notable for something else, doesn't mean they are notable for this. That they have been successful for devleoping something else, does not imply that everything they do will be equally notable or successful. (6) When a company has made a single notable product, there is a choice between making an article on the firm or the product. People have sometimes tried to do both, and that is usually premature. For the analagous case of authors, I usually argue for writing the article on the author, not the book, because if one book is successful the author usually goes on to write others. I don't think this is usually the case with products--a single success seems to be often the case, no matter how large the success is. For products, it will often happen that the product is much better known than the company, and it is also often easier to write an article about the product, and easier to demonstrate the notability though such things as product reviews. I therefore agree with Dirtlawyer's suggestion that rather than this article, an article about the product should be the direction pursued. (7) I also agree with the view by Elonka that if they never do create a successful product, the place to mention this endeavor is onin the article on the principal of the firm, when there is a single predominant individual.. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You write "I therefore agree with Dirtlawyer's suggestion that rather than this article, an article about the product should be the direction pursued." but I don't think Dirtlawyer1's statement was in a "rather than [...] should" fashion. An article about just the unreleased product might survive, but forwarding castAR to a section of this article allows visitors to also read up on the company's history, location and company-related activities (e.g. establishing the Immersive Technology Alliance). This is not a firm that has "done no more than raise money", because their prototype won Educator's and Editor's Choice ribbons at the 2013 Bay Area Maker Faire, and was well-received by, for example, Tested.com.[4] This may not become a "single success" for the company, given Ellsworth's previous successes with the C64 Direct-to-TV and C-One products; time will tell. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we follow WP:CORP -- which says "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject" -- it would appear the subject more than meets notability standards. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

". . . subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Most of the sources presently included in the article are primarily about the subject company's new product(s), and only incidentally mention the company itself. That falls under trivial or WP:ROUTINE coverage, and not significant coverage. Please read my previous comment above, and WP:AGF regarding the nominator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company's product currently defines the company, which is still relatively new. WP:AGF is not an issue here. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:12, 27 August 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, Ansh666 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be notable judging by the references. Op47 (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator is entitled to make a mistake, we all do and this is the purpose of having a discussion. I am surprised that given that this nomination has no support that the original error has been compounded by a re-list. Op47 (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment (I'm the editor that originally created the article.) As Dirtlawyer1 wrote, it is a close call. The nominator did not make an outright error. The company itself - not its product in development - needs significant, non-incidental coverage in secondary sources. There is clearly a problem with the nomination though; I will explain what it is in another comment that I'll be adding below shortly. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's a problem with DGG's goodfaith nomination. DGG's nomination text is just "Its first product is still under development." without internal links to Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or any other explanation. It has been steering this AfD discussion in the wrong direction pretty much from the start. Especially if an article is not a poorly-researched stub, the nominator should immediately invest time into clearly explaining why an article should be deleted. A desire to make a rigorous change that results in the loss of knowledge from Wikipedia deserves such an investment. The statement "Its first product is still under development." is just factual, nobody refutes it, but the statement is not an argument in and of itself. This is part of what I meant when I wrote about the "ease with which articles are being nominated" in my first comment on this page. DGG later explained his reasoning in more detail, but I'm afraid the emotional atmosphere created by his first one-liner remained. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (I had not yet added a recommendation.) It's a close call, but notable for its successful Kickstarter, activities, well-known founders, (Valve) history, well-received and awarded prototype, and likelyhood of growth given Ellsworth's previous successes. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both as hoaxes. Materialscientist (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scary House and Scary House 2[edit]

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

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

No references or assertion of meeting notability criteria. —Swpb^talk 23:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Swpb^talk 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete both as WP:HOAXES. I've dug and cannot find even a hint toward existence of film, filmmakers, cast, or crew... not even in social media. Fails WP:V. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Popwell[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT because Popwell has not served in significant roles in significant films or stage plays. His film roles are all small parts. His stage roles have been local to Atlanta, Georgia, not larger in scope. Even his felony conviction was not very remarkable. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after careful consideration. The sources listed aren't really sources per se as they fail to discuss the subject at hand in any meaningful way. This is one of the many problems when you rely on an indexing site like IMDb as a source for an encyclopedia. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless new sources can be found (I couldn't find any). I note that this is one of a stable of socks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Electromechanic and the person behind this frequently has problems both with understanding our concept of notability and with WP:RS, etc. Dougweller (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Sallah[edit]

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

May not meet sports notability. Also interesting is that the creator of this article has the same name. (And for the record the German link on languages does not go to any page) But yes this seems a bit off. Wgolf (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless I'm missing something, we're all looking at an article comprised of a single sentence which fails to express anything in the way of notability and would never belong in any encyclopedia ever. Silverfish8088 (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I did a search I found a record of a Swedish born Gambian called "Alhagie Omar Sallah" who is 17 years old and plays for Djurgardens IF, a team in the top swedish league (WP:FOOTY acceptable). Source: http://mtnfootball.com/team/36/Gambia/220/2015-Africa-Cup-of-Nations-Qualifiers/ The main contributor to this article is called OmarSala17 which does hint at AUTOBIO and COI issue though. Cowlibob (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. He has not played at either professional or international levels. Giant Snowman 17:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't played in a Fully professional league and he doesn't have any international caps either therefore he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. IJA (talk) 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart-Out-Of-Home advertising[edit]

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

Neologism! Claims to be created with AfC, but ~~no AfC submission found~~ AfC created on user's sandbox was denied. Actually categorized as AfC in article space. nafSadh did say 21:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. unreferenced stub without any claim of notability. Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 11:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I could find nothing in the way of WP:RS. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 author's request. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 05:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Zaffino[edit]

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

I don't believe that Zaffino meets the Notability standards for a Wikipedia article. Other than the sources provided at the article, I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources about Zaffino. Stesmo (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter's article is in progress and as such all supporting sources have not yet been added. Peter does meet the Notability standards for a Wikipedia article, both for his position at one of the largest insurance brokerages in the world, his long standing position in the industry, as well as his philanthropic work. If there is specific information that you are concerned about I would be glad to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.84.229 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Paid2Tweet (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Maybe I should work on the article in the sandbox instead. Perhaps the best thing is to delete the article entirely until such times as I have completed the setup in the sandbox. Is this something you can help with? Paid2Tweet (talk) 22:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational Nigeria[edit]

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

Non-notable offshoot of the recently AfD'd Miss Supranational. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The Banner talk 18:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Having tried to find sources before for Miss Supranational in general, I realy doubt any are going to have magically appeared in 24/48 hours time. Mabalu (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Miss Nigeria, I know; Most Beautiful Girl in Nigeria, I cherish; Miss Supernatural, I have never heard of...so Delete Darreg (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable as cited----Richie Campbell (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Supranational Romania[edit]

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

Non-notable offshoot of the recently AfD'd Miss Supranational. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The Banner talk 18:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Having tried to find sources before for Miss Supranational in general, I realy doubt any are going to have magically appeared in 24/48 hours time. Mabalu (talk) 09:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable as cited--Richie Campbell (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Etienne Slabbert[edit]

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

Nothing indicates notability. Poor sources. Fails WP:BIO. Dewritech (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, maybe a vanity bio. ukexpat (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above fails WP:BIO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom Gbawden (talk) 08:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Let's face it, this is spam about some middle-level business manager with marginal credentials. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mantria Corporation Ponzi scheme[edit]

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

The article was originally listed as a prod until contested. I believe the article does not have sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines, relies too much on primary sources, and suffers from lacking a neutral point of view. This subjects it to the risks of synthesis and BLP concerns. I also do not feel this topic covers more information than similar events listed at List of Ponzi schemes. Mike V • Talk 04:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "Mantria Corporation". The fact that the business was a Ponzi scheme should be dealt with in the body of the article, rather than the title. Here is significant coverage of the company and its legal problems. I agree with the nominator regarding over-reliance on primary sources, especially court cases. The solution is not deletion, but instead normal editing to remove weak content and references, and improve the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is a very relevant article. I had written over 10,000 characters for this article and one particular admin had issues with one of my sources and deleted the entire article. How Mantria had scammed more than $50M using 55 LLCs and to be deemed the largest green energy scam in US history by Denver's 5280 Magazine is a very interesting article, including how it was deemed a Ponzi by a Federal Judge in the SEC's civil case, but the Department of Justice has not acted, yet. the admin Mike V also believes it is sufficiently covered in the Ponzi Schemes page, both those couple of sentences do not cover as needed. The solution is not deletion.Richtowragg (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 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 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:EVENT. It doesn't seem to have gotten much media attention, from what I could find in Highbeam.[5] Just your garden variety scam that has no lasting national significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relevant article. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep, as a notable crime, although the citation form is a nightmare. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some Girls (Madonna song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, no independent third party coverage except minor mentions in album reviews. Minor chart placement in a minor market, and no live performances either. This should be deleted or best, redirected to parent album, MDNA —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 12:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is not enough third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. Brief mentions from album reviews simply aren't enough to warrant an article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 August 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 00:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't see a reason why this article will be deleted, because it has as many information as other songs from Rihanna, for instance, including "Do Ya Thang" and "Red Lipstick", which are considered "good articles", but they didn't have live performances as well, (and they are only available on the deluxe edition, but "Some Girls" is part of the regular edition). The information about the composition and critical reception are sufficient. And the chart performance of the songs that I've cited was very low too, so it's senseless to only give some artists the right to have articles of all of their songs (even only "deluxe edition" tracks). It's not fair! FanofPopMusic (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX is not a convincing argument for AFD's. Content from album reviews doesn't count as enough "information". Chart performance is irrelevant when there is no third-party coverage outside of album reviews. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:33, 28 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. What else is there to say? Op47 (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 21:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Labbe[edit]

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

He's not notable. Notability seems to rest on a single review of his work in a two year old Horror Magazine called Diabolique Magazine. The other citations are blogs and a publisher's review. At best the work should get the article not the writer, but even that would be based off a single shaky source. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 22:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search on his name turns up only 3 entries, of which one is this article. I can find nothing of substance about this person. WP:CRYSTAL -- It looks like he needs more time. LaMona (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Rod Labbe. The review from Diabolique magazine for my novel, THE BLUE CLASSROOM, was just published last week. It is not a two-year old review, as this individual states. A quick perusal of Wikipedia shows that I've worked professionally with at least nine major Wikipedia entries: Marie Wallace, Jerry Lacy, Larry Scott, Jim Romagna, Rusty Jeffers; Ray Dragon; Stephen King's Pet Sematary (the film), Dark Shadows (television show and 2012 film) and actor and bodybuilder, Steve Reeves. Whoever has targeted my article for deletion hasn't done his or her homework Yendor1152 (talk) 03:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Feel I clearly established notability in the piece (author, journalist, 3 time Rondo nominee) with legit sources. Also, user who nominated this piece for deletion did not follow Wikipedia protocol and even notify me this was nominated. Underhanded tactic, to say the least. Udar55 (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yendor1152, if you are Rob Labbe, you should read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. We are highly discouraged from editing articles about ourselves.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 14:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the subject of the biography themselves has contributed nearly half the edits to this biography.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 14:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the conflict of interest page, "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers." What I added was information about my educational background, which has nothing whatsoever to do with business, financial or family/relationship issues. Yendor1152 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yendor, I'm sorry for not providing you a direcet link to the COI text about self editing. Please read: WP:COISELF "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family or friends". --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Udar, I am not aware of any "Wikipedia protocol" demanding canvasing for a deletion nomination. Canvasing is usually done as a courtesy. Please Assume good faith with these discussions. Unfortunately, simply being an author, journalist, or nominee do not make someone notable. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you find some reliable sources covering the subject, you are encouraged to add them to the article.Dkriegls (talk to me!) 14:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't contribute "nearly half the edits," as stated. You can clearly see what I added. I'll be glad to take out those additions, since they have little or nothing to do with my novel or writing. I have a real problem with the user saying the sources aren't reliable. Since when are two established magazines--Diabolique and Fangoria (now over 35 years in publication)--not considered reliable? I've read many entries on Wikipedia with less cred. Yendor1152 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yendor, I am sorry you feel "targeted" and I'll try to help clarify some of the "lingo" I used in this deletion nomination. The number of edits was simply a sum of how many times editors hit "Save page". It is not a count of indvidual words added. You can find that list here at Rod Labbe: Revision history. As for your citations: Diabolique first publication was just shy of 4 years ago (not 2 years ago as I erroneously wrote above). Whereas, Fangoria is only mentioned as a publisher of your work and not as a reference about you. Having published work in Fangoria is not a measure of WP:Notability (people). I hope this helps clarify things. If you feel there are citations out there which are not mentioned on your Wikipedia biography that are WP:Reliable sources and discuss you or your work specifically as the main topic of the article, then please bring them to the attention of this page so deletion editors may consider them and add them to your biography where appropriate. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 17:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete the entry. I don't care. Yendor1152 (talk) 20:15, 24 August 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 00:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I really have trouble with people debating--in a public forum for everyone to see and judge--whether I'm "notable" or not, according to Wikipedia standards. It's insulting. My work should speak for itself. If you feel it doesn't, then eliminate the entry. But all this "discussion" is downright embarrassing and unnecessary. Yendor1152 (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this procedural process has caused you any stress. A few facts that may help: First, this review is not cataloged by search engines (as far as I know) and thus will not show up in search results. Second, this is very procedural, it happens to a lot of biographies about journalists, and is not a commentary on your body of work. Personally, I agree you have an interesting body of work, but my opinion means squat as far as Wikipedia notability goes. Journalists produce a lot of work about other people that is significant and gets cited by Wikipedia, but often do not have much written about themselves by others. This makes them tricky subjects to work with on Wikipedia. I promise, you have not been targeted or singled out. This is a procedural tool used to illicit more review from other experienced editors. I am working on two other such proposals that resulted in people closer to the subject finding good references about the subject. Again, if you know of any, I encourage you to bring them here. Otherwise, this discussion will likely close soon and your request for deletion will be granted. I hope this experience didn't sour you to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, we have a lot of beuracratic tools for making this place better, but they can be very frustrating to novice editors. If ever in the future you find yourself needing help around here. Please feel free to ask. Cheers Dkriegls (talk to me!) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More information was added about the Rondo Awards, as well as my connection to Fangoria and Scary Monsters magazines. Yendor1152 (talk) 02:12, 1 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. Especially since the subject appears to be the author. Op47 (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a hellava nerve. I am not the author of this piece. If you BOTHERED to read this talk page, you'd know that, moron.Yendor1152 (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to keep civil Yendor and avoid personal attacks.

weak delete Author isn't notable yet but I'm weakening because of my lack of familiarity with the weight of the Rondo Awards. SPACKlick (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn as now redirected. LibStar (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Italy, Chişinău[edit]

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

Embassies are not inherently notable, and this one has no significant coverage to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 August 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 00:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Not notable; no third party references. No article in Italian WP (that might give more info). LaMona (talk) 00:52, 27 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. Embassies (mostly just office buildings) are not inherently notable and still need to pass inclusion criteria the same way as everything else. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move to the bilateral relations article on Italy - Romania that is appropriate to have, but may not yet currently exist (or redirect if it exists). I am trying to remember specific similar past AFDs resolved this way. I think it seems to be the case that bilateral relationships are valid topics, so start that and redirect this. --do ncr am 22:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Kitts and Nevis–United Kingdom relations and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines–United Kingdom relations as examples. That said, the relationship in question would need to be notable - not just created as a non-notable redirect target for the sake of inexplicable inclusionism. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So this should be moved to Italy-Moldova relations and expanded. For example, use http://www.italia.mfa.md/relations-it-md-en/ as a source which identifies Italy as one of the first countries to recognize Moldova, in 1992, and more. Recent news article (September 1, 2014) is about Italy foreign minister praising Moldova, in http://news.yahoo.com/italys-foreign-minister-praises-moldova-161107386.html. See many more hits in:

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

And the Embassy of Italy in Chisinau can be mentioned in the article, or not, but the redirect to the article can exist. The redirect can be developed later as a separate article if/when historic notability of the building or whatever merits further discussion than exists comfortably in the bilateral relations article. Solved, not deleting someone's contribution(s). AFD not necessary, IMHO, but this is the best resolution given AFD started. --do ncr am 00:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, though even that is a redirect to Foreign relations of Italy. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i boldly moved the embassy article to Moldova-Italy relations (and re-redirected "Italy-Moldova relations" to there), and put in minimal effort to the article with some links/references copied from the Foreign relations of Italy article. Please do feel free to tag in various ways. Sorry, Stalwart111 i do expect this is less than you wish for but I believe this resolves the AFD, which can be closed "KEEP" ratifying the revised title of an acceptable topic. --do ncr am 14:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caixa Mágica[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources, notability not established. Yworo (talk) 01:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The Portugese wikipedia article has a lot more references, but most are to the company website and the tek stories tend to read like lightly-rewritten press releases. I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to pass WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:52, 24 August 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, Wifione ^Message 06:26, 26 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Op47 (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr^\ talk / 21:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Sessler[edit]

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

Deprodded by User:Edwardx. I stand by my original concern: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. One single deep coverage source, a fanzine ([6]) does not seem sufficient." A second source seems to have in depth coverage, a New York Post article at [7], but I don't think that one mainstream press article, one fanzine, and a few mentions in passing are sufficient. This is an article that may belong on a Rolling Stones wikia, but not on Wikipedia, with our notability rules. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily passes general notability rule. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Philafrenzy: Care to elaborate? Because I think he easily fails it. Hence, your argument was debunked using exactly as much effort as you put into it. Plus, your point fails WP:JUSTAPOLICY and WP:ASSERTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Not everyone gets a NYT obituary. Edwardx (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Edwardx: Care to elaborate? Because I think he doesn't pass it; your statement is a simple WP:ASSERTN. Plus , you made an error - New York Post is not New York Times. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above reasons. AAA3AAA (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:MAJORITY is not a valid reason to post. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:35, 22 August 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, Wifione ^Message 06:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Analysis of refs: #2 with 9 links is a web site, not a published article. It should not be included at all as it is not a reliable reference. #3 is about him, but is from the NY Post, which has a very poor reputation. Ditto #6, Daily Mail, plus that article merely mentions Freddie in passing. He is mentioned 12 times in Richards' book, on one page in Ronnie Woods' book, 4 times in David Bowie:Starman, 8 times in the Richards unauthorized biography. Considering how many people were at one time in the Stones' entourage, this does not single out this person for notability. LaMona (talk) 17:33, 26 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this relisted again? Isn't it a clear no-consensus by now? Philafrenzy (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to get consensus than to close as "no consensus", Anyway no harm in relisting for another week, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first two Keeps are by the primary editors of the article (isn't this supposed to be stated up front when posting AfD comments?), who haven't cited any specific policy reasons—one has claimed a New York Times obituary when the article doesn't source either the Times or any obituary, and hasn't bothered to correct it—and the third Keep is by an editor whose entire Wikipedia editing experience was a week in which 57 edits, every single one on AfDs, were made. This strikes me as extremely weak support for retaining the article. While the analyses by Piotrus and LaMona's seem generally good (the fanzine cannot be deemed a WP:RS, for all it casts doubt on many facts in the other major source), I have to point out that the New York Post source is not an article but an official excerpt from a 2009 book, Under Their Thumb by Bill German, published by Random House. As such, its reliability not as easily dismissed as LaMona would have it, but it doesn't seem sufficient for notability. (The same appears to be true of the Daily Mail, where the excerpt was from Ronnie Wood's autobiography, but as LaMona notes Sessler's mentioned once in passing.) Sessler seems to have been a character, but that doesn't make him notable, and it's evident that he embroidered stories about himself. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I don't see sufficient evidence that Sessler meets WP:GNG; he certainly doesn't qualify under WP:BASIC. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am puzzled by the statement that he doesn't meet GNG or BASIC. If I may quote BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The evidence cited by LaMona and BlueMoonset doesn't actually support their delete votes. By LaMona's count:

Mentioned 12 times in Richards' Life, Back Bay Books, 2010.
Once in Ronnie Wood's Ronnie, Pan Books, 2008.
4 times in Trynka's Starman: David Bowie - The Definitive Biography, Hachette, 2011
8 times in Bockris's Keith Richards: The unauthorised biography, Omnibus Press, 2011.

plus:

Multiple mentions in German's Under Their Thumb, published by Random House.
Daily Mail
Rolling Stone
Glenn Hughes autobiography.
Fan sites and Bonhams.

Sessler certainly was inclined to exaggerate his own life but that is a matter to be dealt with in the article (which it has been) and doesn't affect notability. I suspect that there is some personal distaste for the subject creeping in here, even a feeling that the article is disrespectful to the Rolling Stones in some way? I may be wrong. If Sessler was a reputable character, one of their managers for instance, would there be any question as to his notability? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Philafrenzy The problem is that these are "mentions." That Sessler was in a room with Keith Richards or that he said a single sentence is not much about him. He was a hanger on who never did anything but be a hanger on - unless you can find something that makes him notable as himself. Tchaikovsky is also mentioned in the book, but if that were the only evidence we had of notability, he would not have a WP page. There are literally dozens of people named in these books. The ones who have WP pages are not there because of these mentions, they have been written about for their own accomplishments or notability. LaMona (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only used the word mention because you did, clearly some of the coverage is far more than mentions, for instance there is a whole chapter just about him in Under Their Thumb, titled "rock 'n' roll rasputin" that was the source of the New York Post extracts. (Thanks to BlueMoonset) Do a search using the look inside feature here. Several of the others seem to go further than just mentions too, but put it all together and you have notability.

You could call him a hanger on, but as Ronnie Wood, who should know, put it "Freddie's real claim to fame was that he'd spent decades providing pharmaceuticals to everybody who was anybody in rock." Given the importance of a ready supply of drugs to certain people I would argue that far from being a hanger-on, he was essential, which is no doubt why they kept him around for decades. Incidentally, thanks to BlueMoonset I found more coverage in Julia Phillips' You'll Never Eat Lunch in this Town Again where she says "Freddie who seems to be very important to everybody." which I have added. I am sure there is more. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaikh Burhunuddin Post Graduate College[edit]

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

This has escaped from WP:AFC. An entirely similar version is being reviewed and pushed back to the author(s) there, see Draft:Shaikh Burhanuddin Post Graduate College,Bangladdesh. The current article should be deleted to await the eventual acceptance of the AfC version. As the article stands it is entirely unreferenced. Doubtless it is capable of being referenced, but the work would be better performed under review, not in the main namespace. Fiddle Faddle 07:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not because it escaped AFC but because it fails WP:ORG and WP:NSCHOOL Cult of Green (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because the editor is new and actually provided some references, just not listed under a heading of References. These links could just as well have been references for a more experienced editor. They are: http://www.sbpgc.edu.bd/ and http://www.sbpgc.edu.bd/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=177&Itemid=100. I believe that a merge with the draft of the same article would be more in the spirit of creating an encouraging environment for the new article creator. As a new page reviewer, how do I get access to see if a draft article with the same name is in the works? bpage (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question Merge from which and to which? The direction is important. Fiddle Faddle 08:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable degree granting institution, affiliated with National University of Bangladesh, [8]. --Zayeem ^(talk) 07:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an accredited degree-granting institution per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 2 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - accredited degree-awarding institution. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Bangladeshi institutions. Indeed, very few have much of an Internet presence in English at all. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this college cannot meet notability requirements. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep - it's a real institution. It does need moved to it's correct spelling of Shaikh Burhanuddin Post Graduate College though. - TB (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Williams-Dennis[edit]

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

Non-notable as a boxer (WP:NBOX), not made any more notable by his legal issue. I don't think his legal issue is notable or made any more notable because he was a boxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that he is a notable boxer. I don't think his legal problems make him notable, either. At best this seems like WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX. His being convicted of murder and then released falls under WP:BLP1E and does not show notability. Coverage appears routine and not enough to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 18:41, 2 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love Money Party[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS grossly. It does not have any third party notability, which is essential for WP:GNG. It is not a commercial success and devoid of placement on any of the national record charts, has not received third party critical reception. Only instance of achieving is from the first party (Miley Cyrus') mouth intself, which is where it fails NSONGS. Hence this should be deleted, or best kept as a plausible redirect to Bangerz. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz as a plausible search term, but a WP:CFORK that doesn't warrant a separate article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 27 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I'm not convinced that these album-only non-charting tracks are ever really going to be notable (maybe if they are the subject of a particular controversy, or maybe if they are the output of a much-studied band/from a much-studied album). I can't see any good reason to assume that this one is. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per WP:NSONGS: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." That description seems to fit here, as all existing coverage from independent reliable sources occurs within the context of the parent album. Gongshow talk 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My Darlin'[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS grossly. It does not have any third party notability, which is essential for WP:GNG. It is not a commercial success and devoid of placement on any of the national record charts, has not received third party critical reception. Only instance of achieving is from the first party (Miley Cyrus') mouth intself, which is where it fails NSONGS. Hence this should be deleted, or best kept as a plausible redirect to Bangerz. This being listed as a GA has no candle on its notability. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ascii002Talk Contribs GuestBook 13:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bangerz. While commercial aspects do not solely affect notability, it's a plausible search term (got one separate listing with medium coverage from Spin and a bit from Slate, but that's about it), though is essentially a WP:CFORK. I admittedly had my doubts when reviewing its GAN, and "The Shake" isn't a good source after giving further thought (where it went into detail on track), and neither is PopDust. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I'm not convinced that these album-only non-charting tracks are ever really going to be notable (maybe if they are the subject of a particular controversy, or maybe if they are the output of a much-studied band/from a much-studied album). I can't see any good reason to assume that this one is. J Milburn (talk) 12:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per WP:NSONGS: "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." That description seems to fit here, as all existing coverage from independent reliable sources occurs within the context of the parent album. Gongshow talk 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarian English[edit]

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

This page has existed, apparently since 2009, without any meaningful additions being made. The entire article is two sentences long with only a single source (one whole book, without specific pages) cited. There is nothing notable about this idea outside of this singular source. Wolfdog (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Languages of Gibraltar. Funny that article don't delve much into English despite being the official language. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 06:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While true that the article hasn't seen much attention, and it is still mostly a stub, that does not mean it should necessarily be deleted or merged. Gibraltarian English is a separate dialect or possibly its own language (not clear how much it has morphed from dialect status to language status), and it has been studied historically by linguists. What's exciting for linguistics researchers is how Gibraltar, with its relatively long history (300+ years) of languages merging (Spanish, Andalusian, Yanito, English) plus languages from traders from the Mediterranean and elsewhere, plus its close contact with Africa, is like a linguistical melting pot, meaning it is an excellent place to study how phonemes and syntactical structure change over time. While the absolute number of speakers of Gibraltarian English is probably not substantial, since the population of Gibraltar is about 30,000, there are references here and here and here and here, suggesting the topic does meet the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Struck above and Keep. Thanks for the breakdown and good fix. I have added links and mentions between the two articles because I still feel they are at core related quite closely. 野狼院ひさし _{Hisashi Yarouin} 04:00, 3 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tomwsulcer's clear explanation. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The chapter in Levey seems quite adequate support. Andrew (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tomwsulcer makes a compelling argument. TheOverflow (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Suraj Project[edit]

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

per WP:TOOSOON ,even the name of the film is unknown. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer it into oblivion. (In simpler terms, delete.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

And WP:INDAFD: Suraj's next Jayam Ravi's next

~~Redirect~~ Merge (for now) to director Suraj. Having its title undisclosed does not mean the topic of this upcoming film is somehow unsourcable.[9][10][11][12][13] And in considering sourcability of this topic, calling for WP:HAMMER is a bit of overkill, really. We can allow reversal of the redirect when filming is confirmed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to redirect something that doesn't even have a title yet? You can recreate the article (under the title) when it is announced. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fully Agree with S Palmer this is not a title and further None of Purposes of Redirect are meet.See no point redirecting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ G S Palmer and Pharaoh of the Wizards: Sorry... I meant to type merge (now corrected) as we do have sourcable information that can be spoken of in context to the director's career. And we can protect the article history for recreation or undeletion once notability is more firmly established under WP:NFF (paragraph 3. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too early இது இன்னும் உறுதிப்படுத்தப்படவில்லை. 182.65.161.78 (talk) 14:18, 2 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge (for now) to director Suraj.MADRASS2014 (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER - this is a classic case. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Horrid Henry (TV series) episodes[edit]

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

Unsourced; therefore unable to self-demonstrate its own notability. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply fancruft, Since all this is on a Wikia there's no need for it here. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I admit I was perhaps hasty with the above, It seems some episode lists for programmes are fine, and others aren't .... I also feel if we delete this we may aswell delete every "List of X Episodes" article on this project... All in all Cyphoidbomb has pretty much changed my mind. –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This seems like a hasty deletion nomination. The TV series obviously exists and is based on a series of Horrid Henry children's books. The franchise even spawned a feature film. That the episodes aren't sourced is a different matter entirely and has nothing to do with notability. Per MOS:TV articles about TV series are expected to have episode lists. Whether they are incorporated into the main article, or if there are enough episodes to warrant a List of... article is a matter of bulk. If the nominator wishes to challenge the notability of all things related to Horrid Henry, that's a different matter. If the nominator believes the list of episodes should be merged back into the article, that's a different matter. But if the notability of the subject isn't in dispute, that notability isn't temporary and should also carry to this list of episodes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The argument above seems to amount to 'if it's on TV, it's notable and gets a list', which I'm not sure I buy. The usual notability requirements have to be met, both for the show, and the episodes. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nwlaw63, I think you are oversimplifying my argument. My main point is that the nominator's rationale is wrong. List of episodes articles exist as a clerical matter--they're usually spun off the main article when the section gets too long, otherwise, they are expected per MOS:TV. If the nominator thinks the episode article shouldn't exist, their best argument is, "There ain't enough content here to warrant a unique article", in which case, they should argue for the content to be merged to the main article. Notability is a different issue entirely and should be treated as such, since a "List of" article is entirely dependent on the notability of the main subject. We don't suddenly question the notability of a SpongeBob SquarePants episode list simply because it might be unsourced. SpongeBob is notable, his show is notable, and an episode list for the series is an expectation per MOS:TV. If we're going to delete, we should delete for the right reasons, which in this case seems to be whether or not the Horrible Henry franchise is notable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I'm not voting here. I'm speaking more to whether the show itself is notable, which may be debatable (the sourcing appears thin, though I haven't looked at it too deeply). But I get your point that if there's an issue with the notability of the show then it should be brought up on the show page rather than the episode page. Nwlaw63 (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick Google search provides enough evidence that the TV series meets notability requirements, finding reliable sources. And per Cyphoidbomb, just because the "List of I Love Lucy episodes" page isn't currently sourced properly doesn't mean it should be deleted. The episodes themselves are perfectly fine references for basic information like episode titles and writers/directors, per WP:PSTS, and a secondary source is not needed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - since we have an article about Horrid Henry (TV series), and the list is too long to be a useful part of the article, it should be kept as a serparate page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is pretty standard stuff on wikipedia. A list of episodes of a children's program surely meets notability requirements. I didn't check but it probably sells on dvd also. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dio Live[edit]

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

While the artist is notable, the recording isn't. Additionally, the page has no citations. L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 20 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (whisper) @ 16:46, 26 August 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, Wifione ^Message 16:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thats all i got to say.--Old Time Music Fan (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is your justification?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irregular pattern model[edit]

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

Very poorly and confusingly written unreferenced text with a wrong article name [14]. Looking at the inter-language links, the creator probably intended to write an article on irregular urban layout/plans, but any such article would need to start from scratch. ELEKHH^T 10:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 19 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 16:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and start over per WP:TNT. The topic probably is notable and should have an article, but this is just not it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:37, 2 September 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, Wifione ^Message 16:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Please see ANI discussion, "David Cawthorne Haines AfD", for rationale. If I have to cite anything, for now I'll cite IAR. (Undeletion is cheap.) Drmies (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Cawthorne Haines[edit]

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

Two reasons:

WP:BLP1E - Haines was an unknown entity until he was named in an execution video recently. His career prior is completely un-notable. Unlike some other recent beheading victims, who were journalists with prior claims to notability, Haines has no prior notability.
WP:BLP - Haines family has asked that his name not be used in public for fears of his safety. This is standard security procedure that some families will take. They don't want him to become a notable figure because it makes hostage negotiations more difficult (eg. higher ransom figures) and/or makes them a target for assassination since they are known figures, like James Foley. Although we don't automatically delete articles just because someone wants that, we do have the option to respect issues like this on editorial BLP grounds. GreenC 14:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to locate any information stating that the family has asked for his name not to be released. I can find information that states she has declined comment. Google Search of his name on Google News provides results indicating there are now 14,000 news articles that mention his name.MeropeRiddle (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(links posted below by Edmund Patrick showing the family asked for his name not to be used for his safety). -- GreenC 23:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Goggle's results are skewed, when you scroll through the pages it will stop after a few hundred results. There's no doubt he has received press coverage. But I searched by date and was unable to find any mention of Haines prior to a few days ago, it's all one-event notability. I'm waiting to hear back from User:Edmund Patrick, who said on the talk page "the family have asked that he not be named in the UK." Presumably Patrick didn't make that up? -- GreenC 15:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Kidnapping of David Haines. IRW0 (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless something horrible actually happens to the poor man and his name becomes public: the family have asked to keep his identity concealed (see here) and Wikipedia should respect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.21.191 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His name is already public; this isn't a case of just a small number of sources reporting it but most keeping it private (e.g., as might happen with a minor.) I'd also say that being kidnapped by Islamist militants and threatened with beheading already counts as something horrible (but more importantly, notable.) IRW0 (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haines' name is already all over the news. The world wants to know who he is. Wikipedia exists to inform. Could/should be moved to to Kidnapping of David Hainesas per User:IRW0.ShulMaven (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like a textbook case of BLP1E to me. He's only covered in this context, he's a low-profile individual, and his role in the whole 'journalists kidnapped by ISIS' event is not very sizable at this point. The article also illustrates that this topic is problematic: the linkedin profile is pure unadulterated original research, and none of the other three things listed about him are very interesting or important. It's also a bit tasteless to have such a vapid article in the face of the family's pleas to limit publicity. The keep votes have very little supporting reasoning to support them. AgnosticAphid talk 16:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His name has already been published worldwide. He was projected into the public's conscious when he appeared and also when his name was published in the Sotloff video, which is of worldwide interest and concern.MeropeRiddle (talk) 18:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Editing to add that as of today, the Guardian has gone ahead and also published his name: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/uk-isis-hostage-aid-worker-yorkshire-born-father-of-two "Kneeling, his arms apparently bound behind his back and dressed in an orange jumpsuit, identical to that which Sotloff was wearing when he was killed, his full name – David Cawthorne Haines – appeared in a caption on the video, in both Arabic and English." The article also states, "Shortly after the film was released the British government asked the media to withhold Haines's identity, at the request of his family, but within minutes his name was being published widely online by international news organisations such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Sydney Morning Herald." Patrick Wintour of the Guardian is British, and the Guardian is a British paper.MeropeRiddle (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is not notable enough in terms of wikipedia, he is a potential victim. I think the article is premature. He has not had a long enough life to make a name for himself. I believe the article has been created too early. I expect to see his name appear in articles NOW about the Islamic State, related articles and in the articles about Abdel Majed Abdel Bary, Abu Hussain al-Britani, and Abduallah al-Britani. --Pennine rambler (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not at this moment going to recommend delete or not as it needs a bit of thought but Green C was right I should have referenced my point, apologies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29040550 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2741496/British-hostage-life-threatened-latest-ISIS-execution-video-subject-failed-rescue-attempt-US-special-forces.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/03/steven-sotloff-david-cameron-cobra_n_5757048.html?ir=UK+Politics are but three examples. Once more apologies.Edmund Patrick – confer 20:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On both procedural and moral grounds. It's obviously one event stuff, at least at this point. And given that publishing his name might increase the chances of him being killed, this is a really easy call to make. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute Keep He meets WP:NOTABILITY. also, the article (created by me) Steven Joel Sotloff was made before he was killed. David Haines is all over the news and is a hostage of ISIS. This is part of an ongoing situation, we should keep this by all costs. Like James Foley, and Steven Sotloff, people want to hear about this guy. JhonsJoe (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF exists is not a good argument to keep this. I agree David is all over the news and while that is true we have a policy WP:NOTNEWS that says "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event" so when you say he is notable can you please tell how he is notable outside of this event? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT no indication that this person is notable outside of this event. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think this was deletion was closed prematurely. I think it should go to Wikipedia:Deletion review.~Technophant (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This should have stayed open for seven days. Also, there was no consensus reached.166.181.82.230 (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion started at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#David_Cawthorne_Haines.~Technophant (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted. Looks like on privacy grounds. Best to let it go until something changes where there's no longer privacy concerned. -- GreenC 03:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oversighter note: Due to changes in real-world circumstances, suppression criteria are no longer met for the suppression of this page. Suppression has been lifted, as have the deletions that were made in order to support suppression/in advance of requesting suppression. Further discussion of this decision to delete should move to the deletion review pages. Risker (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to List of XML markup languages#F. Invoking WP:SK#1, WP:SNOW, and for any lingering doubts WP:IAR here, nominator and all comments advocate merge, which is completed. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 19:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flow Description Markup Language[edit]

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

non-notable markup language, Google books returns mostly quotes from the wikipedia page. Google scholar has just one hit as part of a list. I couldn't find any samples of this language online. U2fanboi (talk) 13:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge—I'm seeing one passing reference in google scholar and one passing reference in google books. The dead link in the article doesn't exist in Wayback. Not enough out there to establish notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never occurred to me that there would be list of XML markup languages. Merging there is the better solution; !vote changed accordingly. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_XML_markup_languages - the existing references make it verifiable. Diego (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_XML_markup_languages per Diego. I couldn't find multiple RS needed for notability, but agree that this language is verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, is better preserved as a mention in the list than deleted. --Mark viking (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree with merge so I put an entry in the list, redirected the page and deleted the deletion suggestion. Hope I'm not breaching too many rules of wikiquette. U2fanboi (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rege[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:Movie. Could also apply as WP:TOOSOON since the movie was released in 2014. The movie itself does not even have an entry on IMDb, so the notability of the movie is brought into question. Aerospeed (Talk) 12:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep this brand new article. Meets WP:NFILM. Toward existence of this non-English film, we may look to non-English sources and, taking into account the common-ness of the term "रेगे" making searches difficult, accept with good faith that some of THESE discuss the film as do the citations within the article. I am sorry the nominator either missed or decided that a lengthy review in Daily News & Analysis somehow meant this released film was not released in August. Notes to the nominator: Remember WP:BITE... and IMDB is considered "unreliable" and does not contain every film ever made, specially Marathi films. Not being in that unreliable and incomplete database means little. and TOO SOON is best when applied to unreleased films. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was PRODed in ten minutes of creation while it still had claims of notability in it like the good critic ratings and good financial success as well for first three days opening. Those claims themselves are sufficient for keeping the article. Don't know why the PROD was removed and converted to AfD by same editor. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep • The subject is notable and have significant coverage in reliable sources. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muamlaatism[edit]

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

All sources provided in this article point back to the writings of Sheikh Umar Vadillo, who's article was created by the same author who created Muamlaatism. A google search provides no further English language sources. Looks like a neologism created by Vadillo to describe his ideas in that light, rather than a notable economic theory and the article might well be a candidate for merge or deletion. Dolescum (talk) 09:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article claims it's the economic system of Islam, but that only seems to be the claim of Umar Vadillo. Since the sources don't really support Vadillo's neologism, not even a merge seems possible. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a complete mess. Much of this is mere word salad. How is capitalism like socialism like this theory? Bearian (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Author admits it is original research and this time he will not be allowed to change his mind. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antientropic probability distribution[edit]

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

Without sources other than the author citing himself in edit summaries, this appears to be original research. PROD was contested by the author. VQuakr (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Author: This is not original research. It is the result of years of research in statistical mechanics done by many scientists, and my contribution is only the thought experiment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorianluparu (talk • contribs) 07:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles based on secondary sources about entropy. This article is about your thought experiment, and is original research. VQuakr (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So should I use other sites to publish my original research? Then delete this article before sites with original research where I publish may detect it as plagiarism from Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorianluparu (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Dorianluparu seems unable to make up his mind - first he requests deletion, then he re-creates it.

Delete and salt. Author admits it is original research and has made no attempt to provide any references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a-11 -- the term (as opposed to the bands) is clearly made up by the article author. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Emo Trinity[edit]

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

Describes three separate unrelated bands BMIComp 04:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP, doesn't seem like any widespread use of this term elsewhere. Citobun (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Iron Eyes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, original research, advertisement. LiberatorLX (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. LiberatorLX (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Fisherman king (talk) 24:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Mystyshyn[edit]

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

Okay I've looked and looked for ANYTHING on this guy. All I can find for anyone with this name is some personal website someone made. (All the other pages are basically just stuff that link to this page that you always see when you look up Wikipedia names) The ref that went to the IMDB was a non existent name even. So I'm trying to find anything about this guy. Wgolf (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? I think this is a hoax. All the references to Andy Kaufman and Tony Clifton on the person's website kinda give it away. My hunch is that this character may have been connected to Fred Thury, a Toronto based playwright/improv artist who died in 2006, but that's just a guess. The line about being a host of "Big Top Talent" appears to be false, as that show was hosted by a Bozo the Clown spin-off, "Oopsy the Clown" (why would a poet host a circus-themed kid's show, anyway? Actually, that's pretty funny.) Grayfell (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-yeah it is amusing and it does have that Andy Kaufman style to it also. Not sure what to say though. Wgolf (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It appears this person does not exist. Pcwendland (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-Added the hoax tag. If it is one, what is the page this goes to? Wgolf (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Brown (police officer)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO - I see no sources that show this person to be notable and deserving of his own article. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Holds a very prominent post, since Dallas is so large (and problematic in terms of its policing), and I'm finding national as well as local media coverage to add to the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Yngvadottir. Can you link those sources to this page so I can take a look at them? If you're right, I'll vote to withdraw this article from consideration. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the article as it is now - this is an AP story (many other versions online), this is Radley Balko in January this year, and sadly this is The Guardian on his son. There was also a flurry of attention on his handling of a police shooting in 2012; Balko alludes to that and others have mentioned it as a contrast with Ferguson, Missouri. I've kind of stopped since I think the article is now adequately referenced, but there does seem to be more out there. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Police chiefs of major cities are clearly notable by virtue of their position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - prominent post, police chief of major city. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blowout (tire)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDICT in that it only has the dictionary-like term in the article. Submitting AfD proposal to have this looked upon by others. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with numerous references which are available or take the present stub and Merge to Tire, since this was historically (in the days of more fragile tires, with innertubes) a common and dangerous failure mode for tires, and blowouts are not discussed in the tire article. It could always be made a breakout article later when someone cared to expand it. Blowouts are a leading cause of accidents (Google news search shows numerous fatalities due to blowouts) and strandings of motorists, and also have cause fatal aircraft accidents. Google book search shows substantial coverage of blowouts in reliable sources at [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [. The article could use these sources to cover the important facts that improper inflation is a preventable cause of blowouts, and the facts about proper steering after front or rear blowouts. Edison (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edison. Plenty of coverage in GBooks. James500 (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Areticle is underdeveloped. There's a lot more to say about catastrophic tire failure than a dictionary definition. ~KvnG 22:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy deleted (G5) by Dougweller. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Mackie[edit]

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

Not quite enough coverage in the media to satisfy WP:GNG, and not quite enough significant roles to satisfy WP:ENT. One role takes the first step toward ENT and that is a stage appearance in Cyrano, a stripped-down version of the play Cyrano de Bergerac, as the leading lady Roxanne, which Mackie played opposite Frank Langella. (The play was poorly received.) This biography needs more such roles for it to avoid deletion. Binksternet (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Enough mentions of actress in the right places. She's had enough prominent roles as well and in roles with all the right profile actors. Many many more than the thosands of articles about other actors on this website. BTW: This article is only in the early stages (Boss Reality (talk) 08:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Can you point to two or three of the "many many" sources which will save this article? The sources must be verifiable. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I see that Binksternet User_Binksternet who nominated this one for deletion has also nominated the C. Courtney Joyner article for deletion. Strange !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boss Reality (talk • contribs) 09:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not so strange, actually. I have been looking at the articles you have created to make sure that they are notable enough for Wikipedia. Some are, some are not. Binksternet (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ENT. A number of brief mentions in minor roles, but no articles, books, or reviews that have in-depth or exclusive coverage of her as a subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has been expanded somewhat since it was nominated for deletion. Here are the new sources:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19991120&id=SuFPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=qAgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=2055,2198988, Ocala Star-Banner - Nov 20, 1999, Page 30, "Monday, 9 p.m. on NBC Law & Order: Special Victims Unit"

This is just a TV schedule announcement. No in-depth coverage of Mackie.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1346&dat=19981122&id=6Z0sAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Rf0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3435,1723276, Lakeland Ledger Nov 22, 1998, page 74, "Reeve's Acting Career Back on Course by Suzanne Gill"

Mackie is mentioned only in passing, no in-depth discussion of her characterization or her career.

http://www.kinopoisk.ru/name/2508/ Эллисон Маки Allison Mackie

This is a Russian-language page of information scraped from other websites. There is no original material here, nor is there in-depth coverage of Mackie.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1957&dat=19900727&id=iHchAAAAIBAJ&sjid=cIkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2341,6232024, The Daily Gazette - Jul 27, 1990 Page 52, "ELvis is Merry Satire That Needs Tightening"

This newspaper piece about a local stage production has a short paragraph on Karen, the minor role played by Mackie. Nothing is said about how Mackie performed the role, whether she was good or bad, or any other detail about Mackie.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1957&dat=19980623&id=EmFGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7egMAAAAIBAJ&pg=1593,5444494 The Daily Gazette Jun 23, 1998, Page 4, "Stellar cast in 'The Big Knife' helps Odets pack a wallop by Ellanor Koblenz"

This newspaper piece about a local stage production says that Mackie played the minor role of Connie Bliss "juicily". That's all they say about Mackie.

The Hour June 16, 2000 Page C4 "Playhouse takes a wife by David A. Rosenberg"

This newspaper piece credits Mackie with a starring role in a stage production of The Constant Wife, and the only photo they provide is of Mackie. They criticize Mackie for turning in a "journeyman performance, long on technique, short on inspiration." The reviewer says other actors steal the show from Mackie. This would be really good stuff in The New York Times but it is in a little paper in Norwalk, Connecticut. This source adds incrementally to notability but does not lift Mackie up out of the local level where there are thousands of hard-working actors with no Wikipedia biographies. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. I've reverted back to v.2010 to wipe out the promo crap, As noted below there is plenty of coverage. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visit Florida[edit]

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

Obvious advert. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. The current tone of the article is more promotional than it should be, but that can be fixed: the 6 January 2010 version [23] was better, although it needed inline sources, and we might do well to go back to that version and try again. I think the topic itself—the public/private entity that replaced the former Department of Commerce and controls Florida tourism—is probably notable. Examples of coverage: [24] [25][26] [27] [28] --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As pointed out above, this article meets WP:COMPANY (specifically, what's outlined here). As Arxiloxos points out, there are many independent sources that cover a variety of elements with this article. I would keep, and consider using the diff page to revert the article back to remove the WP:SOAP issues. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please add appropriate clean-up tags and clean it up. (SOFIXIT) (NPASRN) (non-admin closure) (t) Josve05a (c) 18:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Direk Lavansiri[edit]

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

Purely promotional resume. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional resume, no assertions of notability. —Gaff ^ταλκ 23:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep. I will revise my initial suggestion after further review. Thanks. —Gaff ^ταλκ 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of course there's an assertion of notability. He's chairman of a commission appointed by the king. This would easily be enough to grant him notability in a western country (do you really think the chairman of a commission appointed by the Queen of the United Kingdom or the President of the United States would be deleted?). He was also appointed to a chair at one of Thailand's most prestigious universities by the king. Yes, it's a terrible article, but AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AMAI Ayurveda Medical Association of India[edit]

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

Advert that attempts to use their own website to verify itself, which is of course, incorrect. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried finding sources using Google, but unable to find any reliable source(s) expect the self-published one. At present the fails general notability guidelines. CutestPenguin^Hangout 15:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Advertising, only available sourcing is self-published. Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It certainly needs work doing to it but that's never a reason to nominate an article, WP:SOFIXIT applies. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia University Press[edit]

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

Too much promo for it to be on Wikipedia. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable academic publishing house. Remove any excessively promotional content instead of deleting an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. This is a significant university press, the sort of thing our encyclopedia should clearly cover. --03:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep as stated by both above. If it's too much of a promo (probably edited by the press itself) then fix it, instead of nuking it. A²Kafir (and...?) 15:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Alire[edit]

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

promotional Mr. Guye (talk) 00:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - faulty nomination: "promotional" isn't a reason for deletion, you need to argue why this particular article in Category:Presidents of the American Library Association is somehow less notable than all the others. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Eminent librarian and member of the National Council on the Humanities. Clearly notable. Also not in any way promotional. Bizarre reason for nomination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it could be pruned a little, that's a reason for editing not deletion. I do think some was copy/pasted from a CV and have consequently tied to fix the formatting a little StarM 03:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh K. Agarwal[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article reads like a resume. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria #5 as the holder of a named chair at a major university. Improve through normal editing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, holders of named chairs at major universities are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the named chair, his faculty profile indicates a many-times-over pass of #C3 as a fellow of multiple societies (among which at least AAAS and IEEE are good enough for a pass). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep • The article meets WP:ACADEMIC. CutestPenguin^Hangout 14:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. The very first sentence of the lede indicates he holds a named professorship, which precisely satisfies WP:PROF c5. Would be good form for nom to withdraw this one to save time of other commentators. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nol Card[edit]

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

Advertisement. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This subject matter is appropriate as part of our coverage of Transportation in Dubai. It might be more detailed than necessary, but that is an issue for editing. We could also consider merging a shorter version of this as a new section of Transportation in Dubai; but again, that's for editing, not AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. This article is very helpful for people who are not familiar with the payment system of the transportation in Dubai. As the recent contributor of this article, I acknowledge that I have added details more than necessary and I apologize for this. I assure you that I will remove unnecessary details of this article as soon as possible. Regards Ayub407 (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at most Merge in to Transportation in the United Arab Emirates#Nol Card. @Mr. Guye:, Advertisement by itself is not sufficient as an explanation for starting this AfD. The Nol Card is reasonably notable, as notable as a MetroCard/ --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rsrikanth05 Please note that the Nol Card is only used in transportation in Dubai, not Transportation in the United Arab Emirates. So therefore, this article should not be merged with Transportation in the United Arab Emirates. Ayub407 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayub407 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, yes, the same. I said UAE because I was working on cleaning up that article with another user. Also, because I know that my Nol Card can be used on a Dubai-Abu Dhabi bus, which would fall in the purview of UAE and not just Dubai.--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, The Nol Card indeed can be used outside Dubai like Dubai-Abu Dhabi bus, but that bus is managed by Road and Transport Authority (RTA). Anyway, I suggest that this article should stay separate instead of merging with transportation in Dubai or transportation in the United Arab Emirates because this article looks simpler and this article's information will increase in future. Ayub407 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consensus says Keep as of now, so I don't see the article going anywhere, but my suggestion was in the event consensus asked to merge it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing promo about it, Sure it needs fixing but certainly doesn't need deleting!, I suggest the nominator re-reads this page before nominating any more articles!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obviously as notable as any article in Category:Fare collection systems In ictu oculi (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It helps understand the different kinds of Nol cards in the market. And it is certainly not promotional. Ranged Enigma (talk) 13:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SuJon Berries[edit]

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

Promotional. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and? What's your reason related to deletion criteria for deleting this evidently notable company? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, appears (self-)promotional. Fails WP:SIGCOV. 2 links to their own website, 1 to a blog and 1 to an offline source which cannot be checked for depth of coverage. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing around to suggest notability NealeFamily (talk) 03:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Almost worth a speedy for unambiguous advertising. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This user (Mr. Guye) has listed at least 15 AfD's, which could either been cleaned up, or tagged for clean up. (WP:SOFIXIT) I see consensus of the subjects notability, so I will close this but I have WP:NPASRN. (non-admin closure) (t) Josve05a (c) 18:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tandy Leather Factory[edit]

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

Appears to be an advertisement. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable company and its early history is described in this book and several others. Shortcomings in the current version of this article should be addressed through normal editing rather than by deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cullen328. I could imagine someone making an argument that this material could be satisfactorily covered in the Tandy Corporation article, but that wouldn't be an AfD question, and in any case it looks to me like there's enough here to justify the separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Had it not been appropriately sourced I would understand nominating .....But it is sourced quite alot, WP:SOFIXIT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deskloops[edit]

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

Advert. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per WP:GNG, as well as what is outlined under WP:PRODUCT. No articles or independent sources exist to establish any kind of notability. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam and also no credible claim of significance - only a description of the product. --Gccwang (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Only ref is to a download site review, not sufficient to establish notability on its own.Dialectric (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Ponomarev[edit]

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

Vanity self-promo. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and fix. As a deputy of the national parliament of Russia (State Duma) and being the closest among them to be sane the guy is inherently notable and really important in Russian politics. The article is mostly referenced and true but the tone must be fixed. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an elected member of the State Duma, there is no doubt that he meets WP:POLITICIAN and that this article should be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is a elected member of State Duma and clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nothing promo about it, Sure it needs fixing but certainly doesn't need deleting!, As noted above Passes WP:POLITICIAN, I suggest the nominator re-reads this page before nominating any more articles!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously as a member of a national legislature. AfD is not cleanup. Nominator obviously hasn't bothered checking Wikipedia procedures. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as legislator he clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN. --Soman (talk) 09:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Tóraí per CSD G5, "Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: per WP:DUCK". (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bebuzee[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a non-notable social network. I am unable to find any reliable sources with which to establish notability The article claims that the website has 2,000,000+ users, which seems dubious given its Alexa rank and the fact that the site was launched only two months ago. - Mr X 00:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:EVASION. Re-creation of paid promotional article from gigantic sockfarm of blocked editor [29] either by same person or a proxy. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Vanuatu[edit]

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

Advertisement. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically despite the 1978 foundation, this was a flash-in-the-pan event that year that was then re-established last year. Attempt to suggest/imply that this is 35+ years old. Article is unambiguously advertising and promotional and reads like a copy and pasted press release. Mabalu (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable event, Fails WP:NEVENT. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elder abuse awareness[edit]

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

Pure advocacy. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have the much better Elder abuse and this is little more than a "how to" guide to detect elder abuse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elder_abuse#Warning_signs. As User:Cullen328 put it, we already have an article that goes over this topic fairly well. I do think it would be a good redirect and since the article is predominantly about warning signs, it would be reasonable to redirect this to the warning signs. However that said, if there is enough coverage out there to warrant a section about the various campaigns and so on to raise awareness (along the lines of how pink ribbons raise awareness for cancer), then it'd be worthwhile to have a section about the campaigns and then redirect this there. I'll see if there's anything out there, but it'd probably be best if someone familiar with articles like this were to be an active contributor this proposed section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like Elder_abuse#Prevention already covers this somewhat well, so there's not an overwhelming need to create a new section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cullen is correct, the elder abuse article is the correct place for whatever "awareness" issues might be identified. I see no need to redirect since the three words of this title already contain the two words of the target. Deletion is the proper path. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cullen and to some extent WP:NOTHOWTO. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Davey and Cullen.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a close run thing, but the Keep !votes seem to hinge on this IMEA award which as has been pointed out does not appear to be notable. I have also discounted the !vote from User:J 1982 due to this. Black Kite (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lexi Noel[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award is not major. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:25, 16 August 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~~: The musician is often confused with a tennis player "Lexi". The artist has coverage in MAJOR reilable sources such as IMDb, OK Magazine, Buzzfeed, among others. The musician meet WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO. As an actor, the subject seems to be a notable actor, since has performed in 2 to 5 major movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannox (talk • contribs) 13:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Kannox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

IMDb is not reliable, OK mag coverage is trivial, BuzzFeed piece is a reader piece with nothing more than a captioned photo. No significant coverage. Her roles as the likes of Niece, Student (uncredited), Wealthy Town Girl (uncredited) and Beachgoer (uncredited) are not significant roles. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: The award is not major, but the artist has coverage, and meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. HakPorger (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — HakPorger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: J 1982 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC) It's still an award.[reply]
~~Keep~~ - References show notability of this artist. AAA3AAA (talk) 09:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They do not. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 21 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the keeps above since it's obvious they're SPA's, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:19, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (cackle) @ 21:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO by having such notability, supported by third website. But it needs more citation, references and optimizations. The page should be kept. Fevrret (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does it meet MUSICBIO? Which of the sources do you think are any good? duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okmag, The Trivial Ball.

OK mag coverage is trivial, The Trivial Ball is just the artist talking about herself and is not a reliable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kannox, HakPorger and the articles creator have all been blocked as socks. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now Wikipedia's contributors responsibility, so there's no link within the article's creators and the article. Fevrret (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Op47 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say 'not notable' and do not offer any proof. Fevrret (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can and I have. You cannot prove a negative. This article has been re-listed twice to gain further input. I have assessed the article and found the subject to be totaly unworthy of a Wikipedia article. Politeness made me say not notable. Op47 (talk) 11:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - User:Duffbeerforme, presumably most of above are "meatpuppets" as a result of a fan blog appeal rather than actual "socks" per se. Back to sources, is this a hoax? because looks as though there's a base level of teen notability for such a comparison with Cher to even exist. No matter how trivial. Unfortunately we do give article space to five-minutes-of-famers, not sure why this one should be excluded. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having a large fan-base worldwide, and featured in many magazines is a way to say that she's gaining spaces. Having an award, nominated and among others, in my opinion she meets the requirements to have such article. Fevrret (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Award looks like a non-notable website, even maybe a scam, having said that this is probably a soft keep. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For User:In ictu oculi, That is from a contributor to Lucky Community, not from the magazine itself. It's not a reliable source. [30]. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then Delete - not a single reliable source and a cooked up award to boot. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated, the musician has a notability and coverage on main webpages. Gained an award. That's why it clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BASIC. Having a notable support with celebrities and coached by a major music producer (as said in the article). Fevrret (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"coverage on main webpages"?? "Having a notable support with celebrities and coached by a major music producer", nope, notability is not inherited. The "award". An non notable award (IMEA Award) no ones heard of from a non notable organization (International Music and Entertainment Association) given out to predominately non notable artists (Jeremiah Wheeler, Rachel Lipsky, Amy Rose, Highway 55, Courtney Leigh Heinous, Tim Holmes, Isaiah Grass, Tyler Matl, Goodbye Friday, James Ethan Clark, Christy Johnson, Meadows Fortune, Red Box Harbor, Seven Story Fall). Not a major award. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MnoGoSearch[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does this unreferenced article meet GNG?Dialectric (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary response while I gather links: Why should I provide a detailed webliography of the contents GBooks for someone who appears to be impliedly admitting that he has not looked? In what way is the absence of references from this article relevant when sources are available in GBooks, GScholar and elsewhere? James500 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. One of those is two pages long, and if that is not significant coverage, nothing is. And there is more where that came from. James500 (talk) 23:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PHP Pocket Reference just includes it in a list of functions. Google Hacking for Penetration Testers, Band 2 just includes it in a table. PHP 5-Migration: Was Sie beim Umstieg auf PHP 5.3 beachten müssen just includes it in a table. Debian GNU/Linux: Grundlagen, Einrichtung und Betrieb is just a one line listing. TYPO3 Kochbuch is just a passing mention. Linux, Apache, MySQL a PHP: instalace a konfigurace prostredí pro pokrocilé webové aplikace just includes it in a table. PHP 5 two passing mentions. Programming PHP just includes it in a table. Mastering HTML and XHTML a short paragraph in a list. PHP and PostgreSQL: Advanced Web Programming a short instruction. Keamanan Akses ke PostgreSQL Melalui PHP (Menggunakan Apache Web Server pada GNU/Linux) same again. Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2003 : the Sixteenth Annual Conference a small description as the tool they used. Information Security and Assurance: 4th International Conference, ISA 2010, Miyazaki, Japan, June 23-25, 2010, Proceedings a mention. Introduction to Data Mining with Case Studies a short paragraph in a list.

Network Security Tools looks good. That's one.

I never implied I didn't look and you are not gathering links for me, you should be doing so to try demonstrate notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Programming PHP is a headed section. Mastering HTML and XHTML is a decent sized paragraph. I would not describe it as "short". Legal Knowledge and Information Systems is a decent sized passage. Introduction to Data Mining with Case Studies is a decent sized paragraph. Snippet view indicates that PHP Black Book mentions MnoGoSearch on 5 separate pages. It is likely that there is a very detailed discussion. Google Hacking for Penetration Testers says something that looks important regardless of its length. All of these look good to me. None of them look trivial. That is six, even without the best source. The two page discussion in Network Security Tools is massive and would be significant coverage in of itself even if there was nothing else. As for the rest, a sufficiently large number of single sentences and entries in tables and lists can contribute to notability as long as there are more detailed sources. I did not accuse you of not looking for sources. I was referring to the comment made by User:Dialectric. I do not have to demonstrate anything (though I think I have). NRVE clearly states that it is enough to argue that a topic is likely to have received significant coverage. James500 (talk) 09:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Google Scolar search, [48] Christian75 (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions in scholarly articles does not establish notability. Which of these articles provides significant coverage?Dialectric (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other people might not agree with your personal opinions about what is and is not "brief". GNG doesn't define significant coverage in precise language. James500 (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC) In fact, if you read N carefully, it seems to be possible to satisfy it with a three sentence article, because that is all that the words "half" and "few" actually imply. James500 (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC) In fact, the canonical example of insignificant coverage given by GNG is a single sentence in a single source. I personally am inclined to define significant coverage as "something that can be detected with snippet view". None of this matters because the coverage in GBooks is far more extensive than that. James500 (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we are obliged to keep any topic that is likely to have received significant coverage. And where a topic is mentioned in 144 scholarly papers, you could infer that likelihood from the number alone. James500 (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"something that can be detected with snippet view". So your definition of significant coverage is that the word appears? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is a passage that isn't so long that it can't be detected with snippet view. It will be less than a page. It is likely to be something that could be described as a "paragraph". James500 (talk) 09:40, 3 September 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (deliver) @ 21:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Galbraith[edit]

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

I could not establish his WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE as non-notable. ΤheQ Editor ^Talk? 19:48, 18 August 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, –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 20:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as cannot find any sufficient evidence of notability. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt Locker (musical)[edit]

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

Looks like a hoax [49]. Of course, we may have articles about notable hoaxes, but this one presents the subject as it was real. By the way, not sure if this hoax is notable itself. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a hoax. This is a REAL FAKE musical, same as any other musical that can be found in Category:Fictional musicals. Lockher (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~. No evidence of any real-world notability or coverage outside of the work of fiction. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some mention of this in various sources ([50], [51]), but I can't see where it's notable outside of the musical. I think that it'd be best to add a mention of this in the section about the Broadway performance of HatAI and just redirect there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... I can somewhat see the rationale for having a separate article. There has been quite a bit of coverage so far and some of it has specifically focused on the fake Playbills. I don't know that it's specifically enough for a separate article at this point in time, though. It's certainly enough for a section on the main article for the musical- I think that I'll add a section in the article somewhere and suggest redirecting there for now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hedwig_and_the_Angry_Inch_(musical)#Broadway_premiere for now, anyway. This has gained enough coverage to where it should be mentioned somewhere, especially since it impacts HatAI, but I don't know that the coverage has been so heavy that it would really merit its own entry right now. If this is used in future productions and/or continues to get some mention in various sources, then it'd certainly merit its own page in the future. Since we can't predict that other productions or runs will use this, I recommend redirecting to the main article with the history intact. If/when that coverage comes, we can always un-redirect and have the article history to pull from. It's pretty close and if the consensus is to keep the article I certainly won't argue, but I just feel that this falls just slightly short of what we'd need right now. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank you to Tokyogirl79 for providing the links to reliable sources and the context about the musical. I'm thinking it is best to keep the material around, at least in history. We can have a separate discussion of whether to let it stand alone or merge it into the Hedwig and the Angry Inch (musical) article. And time may tell: it's still pretty new, but it may yet gain the level of cultural familiarity that Springtime for Hitler has. —C.Fred (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally hoping that someone will actually make it. It sounds like it'd be a scream, especially if they do dance numbers. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to add to the article this official audio from the musical, but it was deleted. Lockher (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you follow the directions at WP:SAMPLE? You could probably ask for help there or at WP:CQ. I think that CQ is pretty much for images, but they'd probably be able to help you with audio uploads. I'm not as familiar with audio uploads as I am with image uploads for movie posters and whatnot. I'd probably hold off on uploading anything until after the AfD is closed, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 August 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 20:44, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 20:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MasterChef Vietnam (season 2)[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. - Mr X 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Article was nominated just days after creation by a new user. The season itself is just barely a month old. Vietnam readers or series viewers may not even be aware it exists. If it merely becomes a list of contestants without any sources (as the first season nearly is), then it could be deleted. It should also be noted that its main article MasterChef Vietnam doesn't even exist. Perhaps both season should be merged into it. — Wylie pedia 15:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some programmes just aren't notable and this is one of them, IMHO Season 1 should also be here since that's just as bad. –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:14, 24 August 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 20:47, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (parlez) @ 20:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete — In the same spirit of WP:A9, if the main article doesn't exist, it makes little sense to have either season 1 or season 2; however, it would also make sense to merge both into a single article: MasterChef Vietnam (or similar), if appropriate. I have no clue in terms of its actual notability, though nor am I well-versed in the subject. :P --slakr^\ talk / 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per slakr and above. Why do we need articles about various seasons about a show that doesn't even have a parent article. —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linear Sphere[edit]

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

Not notable group. The article is only sourced by the group's own website. Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had added a link to the Sea of Tranquility webzine where the band's album was reviewed by two different reviewers. Also, I had included another link for an interview with the band, but both links were deleted by Binksternet because he thought I was spamming! How can I be spamming when I provide links to a band that actually exists?! What is wrong with including a link to Sea of Tranquility? Just because I am a reviewer there does not negate the fact that this band has been musically active for over a decade. When Binksternet deleted my links, someone else flagged the band to get deleted from Wiki. Please explain how this makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmura (talk • contribs) 16:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got no idea about what you're asking. Binksternet is an experienced user. I just saw the poorly-sourced stub and here we are. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got no idea what I'm asking? Binksternet removed valid link I had added to the Linear Sphere link saying I was spamming. Then you came along and flagged the article as "not notable group". I have therefore re-added the links and proven that the band is a legit act and deserves a place on the site. What's not to understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmura (talk • contribs) 16:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ I removed the Sea of Tranquility references because Batmura was spamming them into the encylopedia right and left. I assert that Batmura has a conflict of interest with regard to Sea of Tranquility, being connected to the publication. Because of the conflict, Batmura cannot re-insert Sea of Tranquility references that have been removed as disputed. Without the references, the article has very little to go on. How many of our readers will be inconvenienced if this article is deleted? I can think of only one. Binksternet (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my !vote to Keep subsequent to this expansion by Batmura, showing more third party sources paying attention to the band. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added other links that prove this is a valid entry. Why did you remove them? The band is listed on Metal-Archives.com which I linked to the page. It is wrong to delete it based on valid information. I am not spamming! The band is also listed on AllMusic.com which I have also added to the page. How is providing a legit link to a source spamming? Those interviews provide worthwhile information on the artist. I could easily re-add them using a different name or ask a friend to do it with their own alias. But there's no reason for that. Why do you keep following me and delete everything without giving it some thought first?

Delete Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Their music has not been in any nation's national charts, nor has it been nominated for any major awards, nor has any of their works been the subject of works of others. Further more there is a distinct lack of any in depth significant "multiple published secondary sources" about the subject. AlanS (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has thousands of bands listed that have "not been nominated for any major awards." Do you want me to list some of these bands? I had no idea we were only adding bands that got MTV awards. Why don't we take down every other band then? This band is as legit as any other out there. They should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmura (talk • contribs) 13:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added links to reviews of their new album. If Binksternet doesn't remove them as he did my links for Sea of Tranquility reviews, you can see the band got reviewed on many different webzines. This is further proof that they should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmura (talk • contribs) 13:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlanS said the entry fails WP:GNG. That's not true. It says ""Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources do not have to be available online and do not have to be in English." and my entries are from all kinds of different sources, both English and other languages. There are thousands of other entries of bands with NO INFO or LINKS at all that are still part of the site. It would be wrong and unfair. I rest my case. This entry cannot be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batmura (talk • contribs) 13:35, 17 August 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 20:48, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 20:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gang Rags. (non-admin closure) Jim Carter (from public cyber) 11:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Rags (Uncut & Uncensored)[edit]

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

This album does not need a standalone page per WP:NALBUMS. Asdklf; (talk) 04:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gang Rags. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:20, 19 August 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 20:53, 24 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against speedy re-nomination. slakr^\ talk / 22:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Osnos[edit]

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

WP:N - Lacks notability
WP:RS - References are mainly WP:SELF and articles written by the subject of the article
WP:Author - Fails
WP:COI - Possible COISELF/WP:SPIP - Red link editors who are highly focused on this article/topic. PeterWesco (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Even if article is written in a reliable source, still notable, otherwise it wouldn't be published. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which reliable sources are you referring to? LibStar (talk) 12:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above. J 1982 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin J 1982 (talk · contribs) has made 6 identical keep as above !votes in 4 minutes. LibStar (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: J 1982 actually made the same/similar comment on 28 AfDs in short period of time. PeterWesco (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete yes he is a journalist but sources do not establish WP:CREATIVE is met. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 18 August 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, 25 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice against speedy re-nomination. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Ward (audio engineer)[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable music producer lacking non-trivial support. Most of the awards listed in the article he was not nominated for the awards, but rather the group he worked with was. The references are a lot of lists and blogs, but the article lacks in-depth coverage. He did win a couple of engineering awards, but not sure if they are sufficient to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Please see the hundreds of works for which Ward is credited for before considering him 'non-notable'. As for the awards/nominations being found in lists, these references are from the official awarding body of that particular award - surely there is no better source than the awarders? As for the depth of the coverage this is a recently started page, which will no doubt be improved over time and already contains far more information than many existing pages about living persons. USER:Hipica 18:49, 9 August 2014 (ECT)

Delete: article fails WP:GNG. No Reliable Sources validate its notabilityWikicology (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 August 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 01:22, 17 August 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, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-He seems notable enough to me. Wgolf (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - It would really help if you would justify your comments. reddogsix (talk) 18:38, 1 September 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (gimme a message) @ 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grimaldi Industri. WP:NPASRN (non-admin closure) (t) Josve05a (c) 18:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karlsson Spools[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few links, especially on their presence in China, but the interesting thing is that there is no article in the Swedish Wikipedia (they have a red link at a disam page). --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 10 August 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 00:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Grimaldi Industri. Lacks coverage, which I don't really find surprising, but a redirect to the parent company would seem appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:30, 24 August 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, 25 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (discuss) @ 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable company making a non notable product. Op47 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as mentioned above since there is an alternative to deleting. After several searches, I haven't been able to find anything solid to improve the article's state aside from my last result, a reprinted press release (I also found the same Swedish-China link as Why should I have a username?). I'm not fluent with Swedish but, from my point of view, there's no way of improving an English article about this company and there doesn't seem to be a Swedish article. I'm open to someone finding some stuff and translating it from Swedish but for now, not much for an article. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andandand Creative[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which would evidence notability under WP:CORP. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 9 August 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 00:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable based on sourcing from books. Needs background information, more reliable sources added. Strawberrie Fields (talk) 16:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in reliable sources, and lacks any indication that this is a notable company. I found one piece about the company's work on the Mirror's website ([52]), but that's about it. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 24 August 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, 25 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is just an advert. Not a notable company carrying out a non notable service. Op47 (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Mackinnon (screenwriter)[edit]

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

I don't believe that he meets WP:DIRECTOR. In the interview listed there is no mention of The Piano - they are discussing a project called My Guru. Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 19 August 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 00:11, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 20:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that he is notable. He was only a script editor on the best known film he's worked on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rocío Garcel[edit]

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

BLP that has been unsourced since 2006. Appears to be an actor who has only had bit parts. She has done plenty of voiceover work, but I could find no evidence that she is well known or has received significant coverage. Michig (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:06, 11 August 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 04:49, 18 August 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 00:14, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (orate) @ 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet GNG or NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full Rankings for Miss Dominican Republic[edit]

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

useless list, no proof of notability and no sources The Banner talk 21:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd nomination, to question the notability of a beauty pageant by nominating one data list pertaining to it rather than the parent article or any of the individual pageant year articles. And "no sources" is not a deletion rationale. Are you claiming this national pageant's historical results are unverifiable? Seems that would require some proficiency in Spanish to make that determination, and again, that would compel nomination of the whole series of pageant year articles, not just this one.
WP:IINFO is what you should be focusing on here, which is probably what you were getting to with your "useless list" unelaborated comment. Why is this data so important to the pageant topic such that it should be on Wikipedia? Does it matter how many winners different DR provinces have had in this pageant or is this just trivia? There are already multiple tables listing the basic data of province rankings in Miss Dominican Republic, for each of the four titles into which this pageant was apparently split, so this seems to be at best redundant, and unnecessary detail otherwise. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 19 August 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 00:25, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (babble) @ 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Utterly unnecessary. Nobody outside of contestants and their families is remotely interested. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Logan Moore[edit]

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

At this time Moore does not meet the notability criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:NACTOR. He has not had significant roles in multiple projects, nor is there is evidence of a large cult following specifically devoted to him. Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 21:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Desperate Housewives. Not notable for a standalone article. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 19 August 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 00:30, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Özcan Tahincioğlu[edit]

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

autobiographical article citing only self-published references. (GYODER=Association of Real estate and Real Estate Investment Companies (Turkish)) ZaphodsCatwalk (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed that this one looks like pure self-promotion. The original article, which is only from July 2014, was created in one session by a possible WP:SLA. However, since it is quite recent, should it be given more time? LaMona (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 19 August 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 00:32, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is simply WP:Vanispamcruftisement Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Protocol Version 5 (iPv5)[edit]

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

WP:Too soon. Any claims to notability are tenuous at this point. If this series gets canceled today, no one will care about it in a year. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 08:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:46, 25 August 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 00:42, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (rap) @ 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if desired. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deviation from proportionality[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Gerrymandering JayJay^{What did I do?} 19:26, 12 August 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 04:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think Proportional_representation#Measuring_proportionality is a better target. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 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 00:43, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unresolved notability since March 2008. --Mr. Guye (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George L. Rose[edit]

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

Despite the impressive-looking list of references there is no indication that George Rose is notable. The references almost all fall into one of two categories: They're not independent (such as newspaper commentary written by Rose himself) or they do not mention Rose at all. The only two that might possibly be exceptions are the Bloomberg profile and a passing mention in the Financial Times a la "says George Rose", quoting him for his company's position. I've found nothing helpful via Google, and those two do not suffice to establish Rose's notability, much less support the rather spammy article. Huon (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Smells like another PR job. I am not seeing any sources with serious coverage as required by WP:BIO, just a bunch of PR profiles and few mentions in passing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Piotrus. References presented do not establish notability as they are not independent and/or do not mention the subject. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I object to continuous attempts to delete pages based on subjective notion of "notability". I understand consensus needs to be reached but reasons given here could apply to countless other articles about relatively obscure people, things and ideas. I happen upon this page doing research on video game industry and violence. For my topic I would have liked to know opinions of that industry leaders as expressed in published editorials. I would have never be able to otherwise. This is what Wikipedia is for, to help with finding things that are not necessarily to be found in other "encyclopedias". If that was the criteria, Wikipedia would stop its existence and become entirely redundant. So either delete all of pages similar to this or do not delete them based on personal bias. This is my first time responding and I am sure I messed something up but this just rubbed me wrong way. As a Wikipedia user I want more not less and certainly not as edited at whim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drozddrofa (talk • contribs) 00:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are far less sourced entries out there with far less content. The numerous and detailed recent additions need to sourced or removed but the base origin of this entry has enough reliable sources to prove notability.--Monstermike99 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a helpful argument. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 4 September 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 05:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems to be heavily influenced by a WP:SPA - Glr9763. The objection from Drozddrofa is the only edit under that account and the account was created on the 14th of August, presumably to object to the deletion. As to the objection of Monstermike99, it's the old "two wrongs don't make a right." That's what keeps WP:AfD busy. I'm saying weak delete because if the article were pared down to truly substantial information (it seems quite bloated with irrelevant links) it might pass muster. LaMona (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed LaMona, I wasn't implying two wrongs don't make a right, just noting my original submission has the basis to keep it from being a stub with WP:RS and therefore not worthy of deletion. I don't object to taking out all the recent additions but my original creation was neutral and non-promotional.--Monstermike99 (talk) 01:58, 20 August 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 01:06, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (tell me stuff) @ 20:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unfortunately even the third relist was not able to draw enough opinions so that consensus could be established. The arguments evolve around sourcing: currently the article has no RS, but potentially it could be sourced. Let us give it a rest for a while and renominate in a year if it has not been improved.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The British Theatre Guide[edit]

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

I'm slightly sceptical this online theatre website is worthy of a Wikipedia write-up. Clearly it is widely quoted by people in the theatre industry who love to publicise any praise. It has an editorial team, though seems to have no headquarters or main contact info. Maybe it could be used as a reliable source for Wikipedia (it clearly is at the moment), but seems to fail WP:NWEB. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other than the above, the article is not properly sourced. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is widely quoted that would seem to make it notable. In the world of the internet having a headquarters is hardly a prerequisite for having an article on Wikipedia. If we can use it as source then it can also have an article. As to the sourcing that is what we have the Template:Refimprove for. If we start removing articles that aren't properly sourced we can get back under 2 million articles pretty quickly. MarnetteD|Talk 19:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an aim on the number of articles? If so I can write a few today but I prefer to help better our articles. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 20:02, 12 August 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 05:05, 19 August 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 01:11, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state the obvious) @ 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Possible indications of notability were referenced in the discussion, but there was no meeting of the minds on the subjects. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Pale Publications[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies GNG. Worst case scenario is a merge and redirect to a list of Irish publishers or a history of Irish literature or something like that. James500 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:James500, where does it meet WP:GNG? The article has one source with a small mention of the publishers - there is no significanyt mention in reliable sources (plural) as yet. Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GNG does not in absolute terms require multiple sources. The implication is that one sufficiently high quality source will suffice. I wouldn't consider that passage to be a small mention either. James500 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that publishers of non fiction books fall into the class of things that are more likely to be objectively worthy of notice on the basis of their actual importance, regardless of the amount of attention they have received from sources. James500 (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of stuff in GScholar. I found a book review, so we now have multiple sources. There is probably a lot more. James500 (talk) 22:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the books they published, "Bear in Mind these Dead", by Sutton, has received multiple reviews in periodicals: [53] [54]. And GScholar says it has been cited more than a hundred times. Publication of a notable book automatically makes the publisher notable in of itself. So I think their notability can no longer be questioned. James500 (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company is often referred to as "Beyond the Pale" rather "Beyond the Pale Publications". I suggest actually searching for the titles of their books, or employing search terms like "beyond the pale+belfast". I'm getting the impression that there is actually a stack of reviews in JSTOR alone, particularly in Books Ireland in a regular feature called "First Flush". James500 (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC) [Book reviews are coverage of the publisher because critical appraisal of a book is critical appraisal of those responsible for it, including the publisher]. James500 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly fails WP:CORP, and of course GNG (no in depth coverage). We are not yellow pages, and book publishers are not notable by default. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but ... how about a redirect to Literature of Northern Ireland for the time being. Or perhaps there is a better target. This topic has been included at reasonable length in a history of Irish literature published by Oxford University Press, so there a strong case for fitting it in somewhere. James500 (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think I should point out that it is absurd to compare a reference book from OUP with the yellow pages. James500 (talk) 02:14, 20 August 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 01:20, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 20:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for a list of some of the books by the publisher, this Open Library search on publisher pulls up quite a few titles. Would a list of titles be appropriate for the article? LaMona (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a bibliography would be perfectly appropriate, especially if the books have been reviewed (meaning that we can say something substantial about them) which seems to be the case. The fact that this publisher seems to have been focused on a particular aspect of the politics of Northern Ireland probably increases the utility of such a list. We already have lots of articles which are bibliographies. James500 (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC) [If they have received enough book reviews etc, their books will satisfy LISTN]. James500 (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alekh Patra[edit]

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

There is only one ref for this article, a book that is not in English, making it impossible to verify. A google search for him returns very little. He probably does exist but I can't verify, thus I believe he fails GNG and RS Gbawden (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is mentioned briefly in Quit India movement in Orissa as one of several people who "took the leading part in mobilising the people" and there is a 1942 incident in Nimapada that fits the timeline in the article, though the reference I found for this does not mention him. Vocalizing Silence: Political Protests in Orissa, 1930-42. So he's probably at least for real. Oriya Wikipedia [55] does not appear to have any hits for the cited reference (ମାଟିଦୀପର ଆଲେଖ୍ୟ) but I do not know what his name is in Oriya so I haven't been able to check if he has an article. There may also be different anglicisations of his name. If we don't find enough sources to support an article, I'd recommend at least creating a redirect to Quit_India_movement#Local_activism to preserve the history and book source. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:16, 11 August 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Quit_India_movement#Local_activism per my reasoning above. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 22:41, 23 August 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 01:22, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (push) @ 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. None, despite three relists, have challenged the nomination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlog[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:N and in fact it is likely this falls into a full out WP:OR. The few sources uses don't seem to use this term, which I couldn't really see used much anywhere else (Google, GBooks, GSchilar; what's there are mostly false positive for some logarithms about death statistics). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nomination that this is below the notability threshold. The sources do not properly support the content. What sources there are for the term are related to different usages (e.g., various computer games). QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:26, 12 August 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, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 04:15, 19 August 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 01:22, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (warn) @ 20:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin IV[edit]

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

I cannot establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Might be worse a merge/redirect to either the book or the TV special. Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Expedition (book). The article seems like original research with the species listing, but some of the content are go to the book's article, such as the opener and "The Expedition" section. Frmorrison (talk) 16:18, 19 August 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 01:28, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (speak) @ 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HealthMarkets[edit]

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

Article appears as a blatant advertisement with an unclear notability. No reliable sources validate is notability. Wikicology (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 August 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was pretty much an advertisement to promote the positive aspects of the company. I removed all of the advertisement and spam links. I then searched HighBeam and there were numerous reliable sources about the company, but mainly of the lawsuits (state and federal) that have been filed against them and that they lost over the years. I added a number of these sources to the article and a sentence that they have been involved in several lawsuits, which they settled. So, the company is clearly notable WP:GNG but probably not for the reasons they want to be notable. I am One of Many (talk) 19:48, 23 August 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 01:31, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) @ 20:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox (Snow Tha Product album)[edit]

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

does not meet WP:NALBUMS Asdklf; (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Snow Tha Product per WP:NALBUMS. 2Flows (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the artist have worked with notable artists and have a lot of success and is known in the rap game. Wokeyourlife (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The artist herself is notable, however, notability for an album "is not inherited and requires independent evidence." This album hasn't been a subject of many reliable publications, the most I could find are passing mentions. 2Flows (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 August 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, Good afternoon (talk) 02:23, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chat) @ 20:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the nominator changed their stance, stating, "I, the original nominator, now lean keep." in a comment within the discussion. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carver Trilogy[edit]

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

Fails Notability. Only reference is to a blog. All I could find with a Google search was book sale sites and publisher reviews. Cited accolades don't appear to be notable either Dkriegls (talk to me!) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable book by non notable author, Sue Harrison. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that this isn't a single book, but a trilogy, and I was able to find coverage enough to show that the series as a whole passes notability guidelines. If we were looking at each book individually then they may not necessarily pass, but as a series they seem to be notable enough. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice citation work Tokyogirl. The NYT's review seems to be just a compilation, in that, the book is not the main subject of the article. But I think the Entertainment Weekly review should suffice now. It is clearly all about one of these books. But I'll leave it to a more experience Deletion editor to review and withdraw my nomination. I, the original nominator, now lean keep. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 14:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment - None of these added reviews mention the Carver Trilogy by name and only a few mention a proposed trilogy or mention Brother Wind as the last of the trilogy. They are mostly very brief mentions of individual books by name: Mother Earth Father Sky, My Sister the Moon or Brother Wind. The Entertainment Weekly article (dated 1990) mentions Mother Earth Father as the"first of a projected trilogy" and doesn't review the book. It's a short biography of the author. The Publishers Weekly (19994) says of Brother Wind that it "completes her prehistoric trilogy", and is just a plot summary and not an evaluative review. One of the Kirkus Review articles (both published in 1994) says Brother Wind is:

"Harrison's final entry in a prehistory trilogy set in the Aleutian Islands (My Sister the Moon, 1992, etc.) provides no more and no less than its predecessors, which means it is a standout, but only in the context of a genre never known for fine writing."

For books written in the early 1990s, there has been plenty of time for more complete coverage to be published, for mentions of the Carver Trilogy, or the publication of more books by the author. There's no mention by any reference so far of Carver Trilogy. Seems like it's original research to make statements about the trilogy based on these references about individual books 20 years ago. (The one requiring membership I couldn't access.) Parabolooidal (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing that the name is incorrect or that because the book reviews aren't labeled as saying that they're book 1, 2, or 3 of a trilogy, that we should see each book as completely separate from one another and not as a series? If it's the first one, then that's fair enough- the author's own website refers to it as the "Ivory Carver Trilogy" and I've changed it to reflect upon that. The current title (Ivory Carver Trilogy) is the official title for the series and there's confirmation that each book is part of the trilogy on multiple, multiple official websites (publisher, author, merchant sites, etc). At this point saying that each book is related to each other and that they make up a trilogy should not be seen as original research. However if you're arguing that we should review this as each book being separate, then that's a little overkill. It's fairly common for us to make an article about a series/trilogy and count all of the reviews towards it. As far as the EW article goes, that was mostly used as a backup for the basic stuff. Now as far as the trade reviews go, there has never been an official consensus on whether or not they count as in-depth coverage or not. I can see the arguments from both sides, as one side argues that they're too short while the other side argues that the review length doesn't matter because there's still an opinion on the product/book. I'll tell you what I tell everyone: if you want to have an official consensus on this, bring it up at WP:NBOOK. However even without those, there's still coverage from Entertainment Weekly (the review), a peer-reviewed journal, and the LA Times. The NYT lists the books but makes reference to a review written by the paper. I'll try to find it to make sure that it's a lengthy review, but in my experience most of the NYT reviews are usually pretty lengthy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also despise listing merchant sites, but Amazon's page for the first book also shows proof of reviews in other places as well. It shows a quote from the NYT and also quotes from reviews from the Washington Post and Houston Post, both of which are fairly large and well known newspapers. You can see similar things on the Amazon pages for and book 2 and book 3. The thing to remember in this instance is that because the books were published in the 90s, most of the reviews and coverage will be from that time period and there's still an enormous chunk of newspaper coverage that has never made it onto the Internet. Some of the reasons for this is cost, but a lot of the time it's just a lack of manpower. In any case, what I'm finding are a lot of references that show that by all accounts, the media fell all over these books when they released but that coverage is just hard to find since it was pre-Internet coverage. It even has a few mentions in books, but I didn't really figure that they were worth listing as sources ([56], [57]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But no reviews or even mentions for the trilogy in any of the sources I could access. Reviews were all 20 years old or older. A fair share for the first book, some for the second, decreasing in information and number for third book. None for the trilogy. Parabolooidal (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews don't have to be for the trilogy as a whole. They can be for the individual novels and still count towards notability for the series as a whole. It's actually incredibly common for us to have an article for a series as a whole, especially if the books might not otherwise have enough coverage for each work to have a page to themselves. It's very, very, very common to keep a page for a series and I've seen countless AfDs close with "redirect to series page" because the coverage for all of the books (meaning coverage for each independent book) does equal out to notability for the series as a whole. Just because the articles here cover specific books instead of covering the entire series doesn't mean that the series as a whole isn't notable because they don't review the entire series. Individual reviews still count towards notability for the series as a whole. I'm sorry, but I disagree with you- I think that individual reviews still count towards the overall notability for a series and there's no precedent to say that reviews have to mention the entire series in order to count towards notability for a series page. What you're suggesting here (that series page has to have series coverage otherwise coverage doesn't count) hasn't been part of the policy to date. I'll mention it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, but I'm almost 100% positive that individual reviews count towards notability as a series. What you're suggesting would pretty much decimate a large, large portion of the articles on Wikipedia. While we're not supposed to be all inclusive, there's no point in seeking deletion for articles for series that have received coverage for the individual books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Is for Nightmares is an example of where we've had precedent for a page to redirect to a series page as opposed to individual book pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: no reviews or even mentions for the trilogy in any of the sources I could access. So it's still original research. If the series is notable, there will be sources. The fact that you changed the name of the series from Carver Trilogy to Ivory Carver Trilogy in the middle of this AFC shows that even you are unsure.

That it's only mentioned on the author's website or on a book sales site speaks volumes. But, heck, I don't care. If you feel so strongly about keeping this, then go ahead.

Although this book fulfills none of the five nutshell criteria at WP:BOOK, but you continue to argue passionately shows that you don't care about whether this follows it or not. I give up. Parabolooidal (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do the LA times review and the multiple journal reviews not meet criterion one of Wikipedia:Notability (books)? Also, as for your claim of WP:Original, what exactly is original research here? From your comment, I understand your claim to be that simply naming it a Trilogy to be WP:OR? I think that is rather like saying the sky is blue is WP:OR. There is no doubt that a trilogy was published, and that one of the books received critical review (or perhaps you are contesting that). Perhaps that point should be made clearly in the text, but I don't see the WP:OR argument. Perhaps I misunderstood your position. Or perhaps is wrote "perhaps" too much ;) --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I was unsure of was the name. The official name is "Ivory Carver" and the only reason I didn't change it sooner was because I was focused on looking using the individual book names. A series is comprised of books. Reviews for those books count towards notability for the series as a whole. Just because they don't say "this is about ____ series" doesn't mean that we can't use those reviews to show notability for the series as a whole. The books make up the trilogy. It's not original research to say that the reviews for the books (which again, make up the trilogy) would show notability. Again, there is precedent for keeping a page on a series based upon the reviews for individual books because they make up the breadth of the work. It's the same thing principle for say, us keeping a page for an author based solely upon the author receiving reviews for the individual books. By your argument, the author is not notable because the reviews for his/her works did not mention him. I think that you're so focused on seeing the non-notability for the series that you're forgetting that reviews do count towards notability for books and that these reviews count towards notability for the series since again, the series (in this case a trilogy) is made up of the books. Saying that the reviews don't count because they don't go into depth about the series is forgive me, just silly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the individual books are notable, the trilogy certainly is. There's no need to prove it's a natural grouping, because a trilogy with a common title is obviously a natural grouping. It's also certain that any competent reviews of the later volumes would mention the earlier ones also, so there are sources for it being a trilogy (besides WorldCat, which I just added). In fact, it is almost always a very good idea to write articles on the larger unit like this with sections for the individual parts, rather than to do articles on the individual volumes. It would of course be possible to instead, or also, write articles for each of the three novels, as they are individually notable: each is in over 1000 libraries, they have been translated into multiple languages, and they have reviews. (Doing it this way is known as WP:Summary Style. And of course the author is notable also; she has written 3 other notable novels in another trilogy. Before nominating a book for deletion it helps to always search WorldCat--it provides a totally reliable source for the basic information. People here at WP seem rarely to use it, and I can not see why. It's not in the least difficult, and it's available free everywhere. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 22 August 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, Wifione ^Message 06:22, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tokyogirl79 and DGG. James500 (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sukito San[edit]

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

Per PRD: Non-notable blogger. FDMS 4 01:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent|lambast 01:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 August 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, Wifione ^Message 06:24, 26 August 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (articulate) @ 20:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity and cruft. He is not notable, I found no independent coverage of him whatsoever. The article is also COI-sounding and puffery-y. BethNaught (talk) 09:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion. WP:SPA, is probably subject himself. Speedy. LaMona (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable blogger. Maybe a promotion. Fevrret (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotion. And make that Speedy. -- ~Mohammad Hossain~ 09:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Corteza[edit]

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

Non-notable gangster film, made by some user who seems to have quite an obsession with the "sindikato". Couldn't find any RS to back up its inclusion. Blake Gripling (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete unless Tagalog-reading Wikipedians come forward with Tagalog sources for this non-English film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep - It was made by Regal Films, one of the main producers of Philippine cinema. Sadly, the film is from 1996, long before internet media was well established in the Philippines, so reliable sources of any language will be particularly hard to find. However, while this might be somewhat OR, as it's a Regal film, I presume this had a fairly wide distribution (I wasn't born yet when the film came out), which would be a pretty strong claim to notability. If it's fine with anyone, I'll ping @Howard the Duck: for confirmation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While we're at it, we might as well keep a close watch on Malusia22's sockpuppets for any "sindikato" related articles. The prob here isn't necessarily the article, as Naruto pointed out that it may be notable based on how it was widely shown in local cinemas. It's that Malusia has been so engrossed with his gangster fantasies, that he'd mix truth and hot air and come up with articles that are at first legit, but show up as not when you look it up his SPI case page, besides the citations. I'm no expert on local crime groups, though I do hear and watch about them on mainstream news, but while I can more or less point out some dead giveaways, I do need some input on whether there's such a confederation under the "sindikato" banner in the vein of the National Crime Syndicate, or if it's merely a Tagalog transliteration, and that Kuratong Baleleng and other groups are very loosely associated or not linked to each other at all. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:57, 2 September 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, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (post) @ 20:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All of the articles are created by a sockpuppet of User:Malusia22, a blocked vandal that is known to create hoax articles about a certain big crime syndicate in the Philippines named "Sindikatu". A related AFD can be seen here. -WayKurat (talk) 00:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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