Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 January	31 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

House cord[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTDICT This term can be added to the list of terms in Cord (unit). As this term is defined as one-third of a cord, I also point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quarter yard for comparison and precedence. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 07:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The "article" is the usual mishmash of (unreliable) numbers from the Cardarelli source, and confusion, total confusion: house/face code/cord may all be referring to the same thing. So there is no content of any value, and it is not even clear whether the headword (oops, I forgot, WP:NOTADICTIONARY) even exists. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Are we ever going to be done with all these silly unit articles from Cardarelli?PianoDan (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable evidence that the term exists, and total confusion in the article. PamD 23:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, especially Jkudlick. Shanata (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against re-creation if/when a significant number of these have their own articles, instead of the current redirects. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of journals in BMC journal series[edit]

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

most of these are currently REDIRECTs back here Fgnievinski (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the BMC journal directory is certainly among the things that Wikipedia is not. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Monticello, Arkansas)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Middlesboro, Kentucky)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per previous Keeps. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Franklin, Louisiana)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Weyanoke, Louisiana)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Fayette, Missouri)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:17, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church (Kansas City, Missouri)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. NRIS is the reason it should be kept. My mistake. (non-admin closure) Primefac (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Episcopal Church, (Flandreau, South Dakota)[edit]

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

NRIS proves that it exists, but aside from that this church appears to be non-notable. Primefac (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I assumed that there was a special notability guideline for architecture and buildings in which inclusion on the American National Registry of Historic Places constituted a auto-pass. I was surprised to learn that there does not yet seem to be such a SNG in place. There should be. Keep according to the policy of Ignore All Rules (Use Common Sense to improve the encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 12:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which has a higher threshold of notability than Wikipedia does. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:BOLDly redirected to Frozen (2013 film). (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The duke of Weselton[edit]

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

Minor character in an animated movie. Not sufficiently notable to warrant a standalone article. Drm310 (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close I made it a redirect to Frozen (2013 film) right before the AFD tag dropped in. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 22:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zora (vampire)[edit]

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

Too little coverage to be notable. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, zero WP:BEFORE I bet. A lot of book coverage, including Le vampire: crimini e misfatti delle succhiasangue da Carmilla a Van Helsing by Arianna Conti and Franco Pezzini, Le donne del fumetto: l'altra metà dei comics italiani : temi, autrici, personaggi al femminile by Sara Zanatta, Samanta Zaghini and Eleonora Guzzetta, Guida al fumetto italiano by Gianni Bono, Maledette, vi amerò. Le grandi eroine del fumetto erotico italiano by Sergio Rossi. It also named a book, Vietato ai minori. Vamp e vampire: Jacula, Zora, Sukia e Yra by Graziano Origa, which is an in depht analysis of the comics. It was also adapted into a film, Zora the Vampire, which is itself notable. --Cavarrone 22:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: see "Drawn and Dangerous: Italian Comics of the 1970s and 1980s" (page 18) and "Sex and Horror: The Art of Emanuele Taglietti" as evidence of notability. —Noah 23:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep between the above and the movie notability seems sufficient. There's also a lot of italian language coverage which could possibly be added? Artw (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jacula (fumetti)[edit]

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

Google results are blogs, social media, and wikis. Mr. Guye (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 21:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep I have no idea which kind of WP:BEFORE the nominator has done, obviously a general Google research for a comic which ended its publications 33 years ago could be difficult, but it requires very little effort to find dozens of reputable sources in Google Books, including The Vampire Book: The Encyclopedia of the Undead by J. Gordon Melton which refers to the comics as "possibly the most successful vampire comic book of all time" or Drawn and Dangerous: Italian Comics of the 1970s and 1980s by Simone Castaldi which cites Jacula "among the most popular, and the least amateurish" Italian fumetti. It is so notable as to name several books covering the topic of the Italian "fumetti vietati", eg Pornograffiti: da Jacula a Oltretomba, da Cappucetto Rotto a Mercenari by Laura Barbiani and Alberto Abruzzese, Sukia, Jacula, De Sade, Lando, Il Tromba: la grande epopea della Edifumetto di Milano by Giovan Battista Brambilla and Vietato ai minori. Vamp e vampire: Jacula, Zora, Sukia e Yra by Graziano Origa. Note that the Spanish version of the article includes several reliable sources. Cavarrone 22:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Cavarrone and also for same reasons/refs as the Zora comic above, they go hand in hand. —Noah 23:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David Izatt[edit]

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

Looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as all sources (including my searching) only mention him and/or talk about his film. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. As the nominator said, it's WP:TOOSOON. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per WP:Notable -CookieMonster755 (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of CAD/CAM Dentistry[edit]

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

Appears to be a private academy with very little if any notability based on Google search results. Gaff (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately, not finding much in the way of secondary source coverage from WP:RS and WP:V sources about this one. — Cirt (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs.BakerStMD T|C 18:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing found to indicate encyclopedic relevance. --Michig (talk) 08:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 20:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Day[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable enough to be deserving of its own Wikipedia article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Google news search on "blue day slow dive" shows there has been ~~significant~~ coverage of this work. —Noah 21:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overstated my case, struck "significant". However, still arguing for a keep. —Noah 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject is adequately notable and the sources needed seem to be out there. --The one that forgot (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Margit Warburg[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:SCHOLAR. Journal, book, and web searches did not find anything other than expected trivial mentions. No in-depth coverage of the article subject or her works, and does not meet any of the other criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. Tgeairn (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is a well-known academic with much available material to flesh out the article if an editor so chooses. The nominator seems to not have bothered to verify that sources covering this person per WP:BEFORE (which enjoins the taking of reasonable efforts be made to locate sources). Unfortunately, the tag-to-Afd process is being abused by some, whether out of ignorance or intent, resulting in the loss of notable articles. There are short/stub articles covering equally notable subjects out there that are only sporadically watched (there is only so much watchlist traffic that can be monitored) and that are equally vulnerable to over-hasty nominations. • Astynax ^talk 20:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Astynax, would you mind linking to some of the reliable sources covering this person you mentioned above? I looked and couldn't really find any reliable sources except books or papers she has written/her faculty page/other primary sources like that. Everymorning talk 20:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Click the "news" link above for a few. There are certainly more, as google news and jstor don't represent anything like complete coverage. For her most recent work, visit her current faculty page. • Astynax ^talk 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Renowned and wellknown scholar who publishes in reputable journals and is editor for reputable publishers: Brill, Routledge, Aarhus University Press. Theobald Tiger (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of those meet WP:ACADEMIC, except possible "renowned" - but we have no independent reliable sources for that. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I had already indicated to you before you proposed this, the article already includes an independent news article that should be more than sufficient to establish notability. • Astynax ^talk 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An single half-column lightweight article in the church & faith section of a limited distribution online religious newspaper that has no critical analysis of her work or works does not confer notability. Again, please see WP:ACADEMIC for a list of what would qualify - including the detailed notes at the bottom of that page. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per previous comments. Sufficient evidence to establish that she's a distinguished academic; extensive reference in other works to hers is evident at GScholar and GBooks. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with 2810 Gbook hits you thought it would be easy to add some references before sending it to AfD. Or just notice to start with that she is Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Copenhagen and thus meets WP:NACADEMICS No. 6 5. Weird nomination. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding NACADEMICS criteria 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

"Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of President or Chancellor (or Vice-Chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc. Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone, although exceptions are possible on a case-by-case basis (e.g., being a Provost of a major university may sometimes qualify). Heads of institutes and centers devoted to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories are generally not covered by Criterion 6; their heads may still be notable under other criteria of this guideline or under the general WP:BIO or WP:N guidelines."

Being Professor of Sociology of Religion at the University of Copenhagen does not meet that criteria at all. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is criterion 5, not 6, which quite frankly should be a very obvious but here overlooked typo. -- Sam ^Sing! 22:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Her staff page at University of Copenhagen lists her as a professor in the Department of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies. The sociology department does not even list her at all. In no way does that meet criteria 5 (The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research). Please research your statements before just throwing accusations around. --Tgeairn (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research is indeed good both before and during an AfD discussion. Nom now makes the observation that "The sociology department does not even list her at all", presumes that her professorship does not qualify, and in two "updates to match sources" here and here removes the string "Professor of Sociology of Religion".

While Warburg has been teaching in several departments the last 35 years, the sociology department is not one of them. But that does not change the mere fact that she is Professor of Sociology of Religion. A simple distinction between where and what that the sources are clear about.

I have corrected the mistake and added further references to the article in this edit. -- Sam ^Sing! 06:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additions. We have differing understandings of notability, and NACADEMICS in particular. I do not appreciate your assertion that you have corrected my mistake - as an illustration, at least two of the sources you added contradict your "correction". These two books both list Warburg as being a "...professor in [the] sociology of religion." Note the "in", not "of", which distinguishes a title from a type. Before you call that splitting hairs, note that the second source lists a number of academics and uses the phrase "Professor of Sociology" for some (Nason-Clark and Richardson, for example) and "Professor in Sociology" for Warburg in the same listing.

Many of the other publications added simply contain passing mention and/or are novelty presses. Do we really want to delve into what the print run size was for the 20 page pamphlet The Circle, the Brotherhood, and the Ecclesiastical Body?

I am unlikely to sway your opinion on PROF, and I remain unswayed as well. I am hopeful that the community will review this thoroughly as this discussion proceeds. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not swayed by what to the best of my experience is a misreading of WP:PROF#C5 due to an inability to read and understand the sources. I can see you have repeated something similar in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saul V. Levine. You are, as far as I'm concerned, very welcome to bring more eyes to either deletion discussion, but so far you stand alone with your interpretation.

"Professor of" is predominantly used, but the preposition has no relevance here: you somehow drew "the sociology department" into the equation although it's irrelevant, and then boldly deleted the string "Professor of Sociology of Religion" in the article. To call it a mistake was mildly put, it's a blunder of dimensions. And it was corrected. -- Sam ^Sing! 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She has a high profile in Danish-language sources that discuss Danish identity and its relationship to religion, her work is much cited, and she has had an important career at a major university. While her field may not have great prominence in some countries, it does in hers, and the newspaper that has written most about her (including the profile article), Kristeligt Dagblad, plays a larger role in the Danish media than its name, "Christian Daily", might suggest, and I found and added to the article another article from the same publication that cites her work at length. I also added a reference to a one-hour lecture she gave on Danish Radio; being invited to give such a talk indicates her prominence there. She isn't all over the news, but I believe she clears the bar as an influential academic in her field. It should be noted that the evidence is likely to be pretty much all in Danish, complicating search for some (Google may not even show you foreign-language results), but that national notability is perfectly acceptable. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep news coverage is quite sufficient for WP:GNG, and in addition, she, like most academics, is notable for her academic work under WP:PROF. The importance of her work is show, as usual for her field, by her books. Brill is the most important European publisher for the academic study of religion at the highest level. The real WP:PROF test is almost always being an expert in their field--the named chair is an easy way to show it in some cases without even having to look at the publications. But a full professor at a research university is almost always notable even without it I would personally say always notable, but there have been about 1 exception a year here exceptions in fields like education where WPedians don't take the subject seriously. And there has sometimes been a argument for someone who studies an unpopular or controversial field, or is highly notable in their subject but a crank elsewhere--the 1 or 2 articles a year declined on that basis are in my opinion always errors and simply show our prejudice, and for some reason it tends to happen with scholars of religion, especially the less established religions--this seems to be a field that often attracts prejudice, even at WP. (The one point where Tgearn is right is that highest position means President of a university or the equivalent, and is an alternate for those people who are appointed to such posts on political or other grounds, but are not notable as scholars--they;re notable as executives. This does;t apply here one direction or another.) When someone challenges an established informal guideline to see if it really holds, that's fine-- I do that myself once in a while to see if consensus might be changing. But when they discover they are still against consensus and keep challenging it at repeated afds on the same still-rejected basis, that's another matter. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhu Products[edit]

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

delete as non-notable, promotional, no refs Deunanknute (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this article was previously speedy deleted on 29 Jan and recreated on 30 Jan. When this is article is deleted again it should be protected against re-creation Gbawden (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree article only consists of promotional content, without anything notable when checking against WP:COMPANY or WP:PRODUCT. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It simply ails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient evidence of notability. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Retail Solution[edit]

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

delete as non-notable software, promotional Deunanknute (talk) 19:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references given are to the vendor's own website and routine business listings. I can't find any sign of notability for this software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete our entry The retail solution point of sale has been around for over 22 years. We have over 5000 users worldwide. We've added some additional references. Please let us know what else you need to show notability.

"Our"? Please see Wikipedia's notes on conflicts of interest. It's against policy to use Wikipedia as a publicity vehicle. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first reference you added, to canadapos.com, is a bad link. I found the product here, which is a sales listing. The second, to pos.com, is a listing placed by you with your own language from the Northwest Network Solutions website. The third, to powertasking.com, contains an embedded video from your own YouTube channel. The reference in WhitePages.com is, well, your own business listing. Notability is generally established through multiple reliable sources with substantial independent coverage of the subject. The general idea is to cover topics here that have already achieved some measure of demonstrable note in the world. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't doubt the software exists, but there is no evidence of satisfying the General notability guideline. When all references are merely directory links that indicate existence, regurgitated PR pieces ("The Retail Solution is simply the best value in POS software on the market today."), and the companies own website, there is no reason this should have an article beyond increasing visibility to customers and investors. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please don't delete our entry.~~ Links to The Retail Solution from other sources: http://www.bobsroswellvacuum.com Bob's Roswell Vacuum]Expressions in Glass Powertasking Solutions Group Basel Service Boutique & Timepieces Knoxville's Premier Headshop

Those are all customers of yours. They are not independent sources. Please see WP:GNG for notability guidelines as indicated above. Deunanknute (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but they are also current businesses that are willing to put our link on their website.

I'm Tim Clark, I wrote The Retail Solution over 22 years ago first as a DOS-based program then again for Windows. I made SOMETHING from NOTHING and I’d like to think the over 5000 users that refer to "The Retail Solution" as a noun, make it notable. Anything I could do to convince you of that would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimC007 (talk • contribs)

you need independent reviews from sources that are not affiliated with you

ever had an article in any of the retail trade mags? CS News, Stores, QSR magazine?
newspaper articles talking about your business/software?
something from somebody who didn't have something to gain from you?

Deunanknute (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've had LOTS of reviews over the years, but they were printed, the company went out of business and/or the URL has been deleted. It seems like most companies now require some kind of monetary investment before reviewing a product. We are working on this, please give us a little time.

In our 22 year history, we've done virtually no advertising! Word-of-mouth is how customers learned about “The Retail Solution”. Isn’t that the essence of notability?

Google uses a very sophisticated search routine that includes site relevance and popularity. In a Google search I just performed, "The Retail Solution" was the FIRST listing after the paid ads. Isn’t relevance and popularity another word for notability?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimC007 (talk • contribs)

Have you clicked any of the links you've been given to the explanations of Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, including the general guidelines as well as guidelines applicable to products? Among them you won't find "has been able to get new business through word-of-mouth" or "your company's website appears near the top of a Google search for the name of your company". (Google's rankings aren't based on whether the websites containing links to your site meet Wikipedia's criteria for establishing notability.) If there have been applicable reviews, there'd need to be evidence of them. If "monetary investment" amounts to "they'll review us if we pay them", then such reviews aren't independent, they're paid placements. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I reviewed the page, and it looks like most of the content on the page is promotional. In addition, a google search for "northwest network solutions the retail solution" turns up the manual and the facebook page for the company before any non-promotional site other than a complaint to the BBB or the Wikipedia page in question, which, to me, is a definite indication of non-notability. Iwilsonp (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, our main web page is promotional. Does the fact that we have a website that is promoting our product make it any less noteworthy? How is that different than the HUNDREDS of other software applications currently listed on Wikipedia?

I think a three-year old complaint with the Better Business Bureau actually shows notability. I also think that any 22-year old software company is going to have a few customer "issues". Because I'm extremely proud of our product and company I would like to also point out the same link shows the issue was closed and there have been ZERO complaints in the last 12 months.

We're not trying to have "Northwest Network Solutions The Retail Solution" listed on Wikipedia. With over 5,000 user worldwide, I’m simply trying to debate that "The Retail Solution" is an actual noteworthy "THING".

I did find a few additional non-customer/independent older links: Solutions/ Capterra Wikigrain Point of Sale Software Buyers Guide Hotfrog Akama ITQlick — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomC007 (talk • contribs)

Would you please sign your own posts as I previously posted a note about on your user talk page?

You're continuing to make up your own definitions of notability, apparently in preference to studying the sources you've been given to see how notability is actually assessed on Wikipedia. That isn't likely to get you very far.

At least four of your new links are to business directory listings that were presumably placed by you.

Capterra hosts ~~paid~~vendor-submitted listings (see [1]), so I'm skeptical of your claim as to the independence of the product's listing there.
Wikigrain is a wiki, not a reliable source. In this particular case, the page is a machine-generated copy of the Wikipedia article itself. It says so at the bottom of the page.
Your third link is broken.
HotFrog, like Capterra, is an ad placement site.
Akama is another vendor-registration business directory. The description is from your website.
ITQlick seems to be a Capterra clone. They both have very similar taglines that end in the same clause: "Every month, [Capterra/we] help(s) [thousands of businesses & nonprofits/software buyers] [find the software/choose the right tools for their organization] that will allow them to improve, grow, and succeed."

If the four business listings among your links really were placed by you, then you've shown extremely bad faith in presenting them as independent. But even if a kind benefactor is placing ~~paid~~ listings for your business on these websites outside of your control, these don't meet the requirement for substantial coverage.

—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not signing my post. I'm still learning how to use this site.

I give you my word I had NOTHING to do with the content of the previous links I posted. I got the idea to search on "Northwest Network Solutions The Retail Solution" from user "wilsonp". Please try it yourself, you will also see the listings. FYI: The broken link had an extra backspace at the end and I fixed it. TimC007 (talk) 04:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you are asking me to try searching for them myself. I'm not questioning that they exist and that search engines can find them. It was through my own search that I found no independent reliable sources as opposed to listings like these on websites where the products that appear are there because their vendors submitted them for inclusion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The third link starts off with "Summary of Retail Solution Deluxe 11.0 software from Northwest Network Solutions, Inc." That sure makes it seem like you provided it in some way or another. As it is from a site that seems to be a reviewed list of all pos softwares, (see the home page) this makes it questionable about how much your software's inclusion proves notability. Iwilsonp (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was only trying to show using a different search is how I “magically” found some more links. If I was in your shoes I would have been suspicious too. It’s easy to place content on websites but it was my thought it would be almost impossible to have all six sites be so highly listed on all major search engines, over night.

Please don’t make us start this whole Wikipedia process over again. We currently have over 5000 users worldwide that refer to “The Retail Solution” as a thing. We are actively searching for a few non-paid, credible, reviewers of point-of-sale software. We just need a little time. TimC007 (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"This whole process" takes two minutes, if you copy the wikicode to your own computer and save it there until you have sources to back it up, and then paste them back into a fresh copy of the article. There isn't anything significant about how when you search for the name of your business, the top hits are for your business. What else would they be for? It means that your website, unlike any other, is full of pages that have the words "the retail solution" all over them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did another Google search for: "The Retail Solution" -www.nwns.com which finds all pages having the phrase "The Retail Solution" that do not have the text www.nwns.com which would be a link to your website. The first result I get is this, which has nothing to do with your product. The next result is how to enable a filter for a different site called the "Retail Solution Site". The third, as well as the fourth, are about a product from Bank of America. Only on the fifth listing do I get something about your product, here, which is a promotional page. Iwilsonp (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google must be different from place to place. A search for "The Retail Solution" is STILL the FIRST non-ad link here in the Portland, Oregon USA area.
- You forgot to add the -www.nwns.com which I put in to weed out results that were from (or linked to) your site. When I input The Retail Solution into my browser I turn up exactly that too. What I really searched for was this exact string: "The Retail Solution" -www.nwns.com (just copy and paste it into your browser) Iwilsonp (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry "Iwilsonp"... Just after posting my comment, I did realize that. (Cool feature!) TimC007 (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow... That fifth link you found was version 9.0, it's at least 10 years old! TimC007 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by RHAworth –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reinelibe[edit]

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

delete as non notable game player per WP:GNG Deunanknute (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Navy Clothing[edit]

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

I cannot find independent sources to establish the notability of this clothing brand. A page at the New York Daily Sun that was previously cited referencing an associated photo exhibition has vanished unarchived; I have instead added this page as a reference for the circumstances of the company's founding, but it is clearly an advertorial. Remaining references in the article are not independent of the subject: the company's website, a book by the founder, Allan Warren. Searching for more sources, I thought I had found this, but Nudie Jeans turns out to be genuinely Swedish and unrelated, so I will be removing it from the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small internet-only clothes supplier. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nom appears to sum it all up pretty succinctly. Mabalu (talk) 02:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Fails WP:NCORP. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 22:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. Not sure how the hell it stayed open for so long ..... (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Plait[edit]

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

Article's topic does not himself appear to have been the focus of multiple independent third party reliable sources. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC; appearing in documentaries, publishing some books/ articles, and having a blog do not make a person notable. Even having a notable blog does not make its author notable. Being the subject of other people's attention makes a person notable, and I do not see this here. This appears to be an extended résumé whose citations include works by the article's subject. Awards are for blog, not subject, or are not national competitive ones. Appearing on television does not make a person notable. Neither does having someone name an asteroid after you. KDS4444^Talk 18:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 18:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 19:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Any one of those things would not be notable. When taken all together, yeah, he's notable enough. Article is well sourced, and does a decent job of covering both subject and career. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think nom misinterprets WP:PROF. Plait has both a substantial research notability (his citation list from WoS is 167, 117, 93, 92, 87, 81, ...) and his book Bad Astronomy is held by almost 2000 institutions, Death from the Skies by almost 1300 institutions etc, according to WorldCat. These metrics show conclusive pass of PROF c1. This will be a snow keep shortly...nom may want to withdraw to save others' time. Agricola44 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage. Just because his blog is all over the place, doesn't mean ignore all the news about him and his books. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agricola has it right. Notable for both academic and popular work. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Research articles, notable books, television and news appearances, a VERY popular blog for nearly 2 decades... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as noted by Mr. Agricola above. Significant coverage and meets any general notability standards. Kuru (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the subject seems to meet General Notability Guidelines, I'm not sure it was obvious from the citations in the article, which have leaned heavily on the subject's own writings and sources from organizations he is or has been affiliated with. User:Everymorning has since done some good work supplementing existing cited material with citations from significant secondary coverage including a few of the following:
- Thaller, Michelle (28 January 2004). "The Bad Astronomer". Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- Williams, Jenny (14 January 2013). "Phil Plait: Bad Astronomer and Champion for Science". Wired. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- Doyle, Jim (29 March 2002). "Astronomer works for heavens' sake / Rohnert Park man corrects misconceptions". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
- Reuters (11 January 2001). "Moon Hoax Spurs Crusade Against Bad Astronomy". New York Times. Retrieved 30 January 2015. {{cite web}}: |author= has generic name (help)

I submit that in addition to his recognition on various television programs and print media, as well as his cited academic work on high-resolution stellar imaging, significant coverage in these independent secondary sources (as well as more like them) meets the general notability guidelines of WP:GNG. Nmillerche (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Phil Plait is a notable public figure. He has the media appearances and mainstream media citations to support that.Dustinlull (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and WP:TROUT the nominator... Meets GNG on multiple fronts. a13ean (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - is this a serious AFD? Robman94 (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first "Phil Plait" "astronomer" gets about 100k hits on Google; second Google finds him interviewed by Entertainment Weekly; third he is mentioned in articles on Huffington Post, and Mother Jones; fourth he has published in Discover Magazine, Slate, and Space.com, all well known main-stream sites; fifth he did a three-part documentary broadcast on the Discovery Channel; sixth his "Crash Course" on YouTube, is financially supported, in part, by both YouTube, and PBS Digital Studios, both would not sponsor a nobody; seventh I verified the number of libraries holding his books through my local library. All of this adds up to sufficient notability to remain an article. Among the Skeptic, and Science community he is quite notable. Nick Beeson (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The numerous and unanimous "keep" !votes above certainly rise to "snow keep". Can someone close this so that no more valuable time is spent beating a dead horse? Agricola44 (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André Corbin[edit]

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

BLP containing no references except an interview with subject. No evidence of notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability established. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have invited the article's advocate to comment here if he cares to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which he apparently doesn't. Ironically, if he had not raised his complaint, his article could have stayed under the radar for a long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could find no sources that indicates the subject meets WP:GNG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability thus failing GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. I checked. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources fail to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alex Chandon. Everyone agrees that this doesn't merit a stand-alone article. If anybody wants to merge any of the material, it will be there in the history of the redirect. Deor (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chainsaw Scumfuck[edit]

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

A not very informative article about an utterly trivial eight-minute film that no one has heard of. There is not likely to be any more material added due to a lack of sources. Richard75 (talk) 16:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Great title!, No evidence of notability. –Davey2010^Talk 20:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete -- have a soft spot for really bad films with funny names. Unfortunately, I searched for variants of the name (hoping for reviews of something like "chainsaw scumf***") and came up blank. Also searched using google.co.uk in the vain hope that it would have different results. —Noah 21:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge what is sourcable, Delete for lacking notability for a separate article, THEN Redirect title to filmmaker Alex Chandon. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect, as per above. I searched for coverage, but didn't turn up much beyond a few sites that are devoted to below B-grade movies. IMDB has an entry of course, but I didn't turn up anything on Allmovie or book references.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alex Chandon. Nothing really worth merging, and I don't see the need to delete it before it's redirected. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chainsaw Scumfuck doesn't satisfy the notability criteria for films, but, with more than half a thousand views in the last 90 days, it will make a good redirect to our article on its director, Alex Chandon. Iaritmioawp (talk) 10:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Sam ^Sing! 20:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tushar tyagi[edit]

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

Certainly fails WP:DIRECTOR with no actual notable films as such. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Subject definitely doesn't meet the WP:GNG standard, but they may meet WP:DIRECTOR #4 -the person's work has won significant critical attention, -[2], [3], [4], [5]. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 20:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDAFD: Tushar Tyagi

Keep I agree with Anupmehra that he meets WP:DIRECTOR #4. Send it to cleanup to address IMDB sourcing, as his multiple mentions in numerous sources while not substantive, do show he and his works have received the media attention. See 1) "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability", and 2) "The person's work (or works) has won significant critical attention". And sorry, but I take issue with the nominator stating "no actual notable films as such", as this new director's films themselves not having Wikipedia articles is not a notability criteria... they may all end up as articles ONCE someone writes them. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per WP:DIRECTOR #4. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 16:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Anupmehra Athachil (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 01:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nifoxipam[edit]

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

Consensus at WP:PHARM and WP:CHEMS is that chemical compounds must meet the general notability guideline to be included in Wikipedia. This is not a notable chemical compound. Nifoxipam is not a pharmaceutical drug, but rather a designer drug only sold online. The made-up name "Nifoxipam" is only used on online recreational drug forums - it does not appear anywhere in the scientific literature, patent literature, Google Scholar, etc. There are no reliable sources (or more specifically WP:MEDRS-compliant sources) to base article content upon. Designer drugs certainly can become notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but this one is not ... at least not yet. Per WP:N and WP:V, this page should be deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This chemical is not independently notable, the name is a neologism, and frankly the appearance of a Wikipedia article in search results for poorly documented recreational research chemicals is best avoided. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with what has been said above. Article appears to relate to a compound which is a pharmacologically active metabolite of the benzodiazepine Flunitrazepam. I agree that in this article the name associated with this compound appears to be taken from its use as novel psychoactive compound, which I presume is therefore not a registered name. Regardless I can't see that this meets WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and discussed in some forums but not reliable sources. Hajme (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG, no reliable sources. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 19:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euronetpol[edit]

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

Smells like a hoax. I can't find a trace of the sources in search engines or library databases. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax with fabricated sources. I love these, really... In this case, the "sources" are so incompletely cited that it's tough to provide concrete proof of their nonexistence. But since the Bruttinsky source is described as having "chapters", it's safe to assume it is put forward as a book. WorldCat returns zero records whatsoever for Bruttinsky as an author, and nothing remotely relevant for On Social Media. Also, without delving too deeply into private information, the website presented as the "Official Website" is most assuredly not the website of an official government agency. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia. Squeamish Ossifrage is indeed correct that the Official Website is fantastic. Golf clap to the creator of this hoax for going the extra mile. —Noah 23:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G7 by RHaworth. (NAC) ///EuroCarGT 05:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Culear[edit]

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

This article is written in Spanish. It appears to be about a sexual slang referring to anal sex. Fails WP:NOT#DICT. A definition already exists at wikt:culear. This article was tagged for WP:G12 but the creator contested and substantially rewrote the article. Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 12:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's original research of a dictionary definition of a Spanish slang term. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, especially an English language one.- Mr X 12:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 00:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeu Jungle[edit]

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

Does not seem notable enough for stand alone article. Delete or merge with more famous wife Estela Renner per guidelines on family. Legacypac (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (a redirect seems unnecessary). Although Jungle has apparently directed a "feature film" and a documentary (which is certainly not enough in itself for a Wikipedia article), coverage of him (rather than his films) is lacking in any reliable sources – he doesn't pass either WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:DIRECTOR. IgnorantArmies (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Tadeu Jungle is culturally relevant in Brazil, and there are several sources in portuguese. Could those be used as a source in en.wikipedia? Bruno Decc (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — @Bruno Decc: Sources for articles do not have to be in the same language as the article. I use Portuguese sources for English articles all the time. This subject could meet the notability criteria if you were to incorporate a few of the academic references that you list below—or news articles from Folha de S.Paulo or a newspaper of similar stature. Also, new editors on Wikipedia face a lot of scrutiny, so don’t feel bad. There is just a lot to learn about how things work here—I’m still figuring out a lot myself. I would refer to WP:CREATIVE as my guide. Força, amigo! — giso6150 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Would an IMDB page be considered valid as source? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1919975/. It would entail his production as director perhaps. Bruno Decc (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruno Decc: Portuguese sources can definitely be used for en.wikipedia. IMDB is a bit trickier – there is a guideline that says other sources should be used instead. IMDB lists everything from massive Hollywood blockbusters to low-budget amateur productions. Have the films Tadeu Jungle directed been low-budget or screened only at festivals, or did they have a wider release, like at cinemas or any a major TV channel? If his work is quite popular or well-known in Brazil, I'd definitely be happy to reconsider my post above. An article on Jungle in a magazine or major newspaper (English, Portuguese, or any other language) would also be a good source. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ignorant Armies: Okay, thanks for the feedback! I was doing a research on Jungle and realised he still had no Wiki page in portuguese or english. This is my first time submitting content to Wikipedia.

Jungle was very relevant in early video production in Brazil, back in the 1980's. Now he had some wider release in audiovisual work with Tomorrow Never Again (Amanhã Nunca Mais). It was distributed by Fox Flmes (website: http://www.foxfilm.com.br/dvd/amanh_nunca_mais-2558/2558/)

These would be the sources:

Mentioned at the following academic works:

1)MACHADO, Arlindo (org.) Made In Brasil: três décadas de vídeo brasileiro. Editora Iluminuras LTDA, 2007, São Paulo. ISBN 978-85-7321-271-6

2) MELLO, Christine. Vídeo no Brasil 1950-1980: novos circuitos para a arte. in: Vol.1: Identidades Periféricas, dezembro de 2009. Arte y Políticas de Identidad - Revista de Investigación. p. 151. ISSN: 1889-8452; http://revistas.um.es/api/issue/view/7721

3) KHOURI, Omar. Revista na era pós-verso: revistas experimentais e edições autônomas de poemas no Brasil, dos anos 70 aos 90. Ateliê Editorial, 2004, Cotia - SP. ISBN: 85-7480-222-0

Newspaper article - CASSIANO ELEK MACHADO (July 30th 1997). Tadeu Jungle expõe arte de uma frase só.

Newspaper article - RICARDO CALIL (November 11th 2011). Amanhã Nunca Mais mostra embate entre o protagonista e a cidade

Newspaper article - CARLOS HELÍ DE ALMEIDA (July 16 2013). "Tadeu Jungle está entre nós"

Newspaper article - GUILHERME SCARPA (December 26th, 2014). Ex-pichador,Tadeu Jungle lança livro sobre os 30 anos de carreira Bruno Decc (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the media article listed above are either about him or review his works. These represent multiple independent sources that establish notability and simply need to be added to the article. I don;t speak Portuguese, but the google translation isn't too bad for getting the gist of the articles. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Archiveurls of the sources provided by Bruno Decc: 1, 2, 3, and 4. The first and third sources provide significant coverage of the subject, so the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. keep ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Unreal characters[edit]

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:V. The Unreal series is notable, but that doesn't mean its characters are. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a WP:SPLIT from Unreal (series), which at present just has a link to this list. So at most this is getting merged, not deleted, though it's standard practice to keep such separate lists when they are too long to fit in the parent article. It's up to editors on this topic to decide how practical that is. Finally, it's nonsensical to claim that any information about the characters from a notable video game series is unverifiable; does the nominator think this list is a hoax? One could generate at least a bare bones yet accurate list just from playing the game(s), even without consulting any of the product manuals or third-party game guides that undoubtedly exist. I also can't even imagine how a video game series could be notable without any of the requisite secondary sources (such as critical reviews) discussing its characters at all. So maybe "fails...WP:V" was just a typo and the nominator meant something else. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This level of detail on fictional/game characters borders on copyright violation. The game paid good money to artists to create them. Do we have the right to republish their work for our own entertainment? BayShrimp (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In this particular instance, I highly doubt the company is adverse to the free advertizing. Pax 09:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe Unsplit: By no means is detail in an encyclopedia copyright infringement for a video game unless the words themselves were taken straight from text in/about the game. However, there's only one source, and that's a wiki about the game, and I haven't been able to find anything worth mentioning about the characters past that. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 17:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC) After looking over Hakken's sources, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. While the article could use some cleanup, there's plenty of sources that I didn't find, and that was the basis for my deletion !vote. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm inclined to say this is not notable, but I found several webpages that may or may not constitute sufficient sourcing, and I'd appreciate if someone could have a look: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Hakken (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 1-6 look fine, the GameSpot review is iffy (seems to be user-created), 8 and 9 are good, TV Tropes isn't the most reliable source around. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ElDeyma[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Sources are all Facebook or Youtube bar the odd appearance on a self-published compilation and a local radio station. Absolutely nothing else in the way of reliable sources out there. Has already been speedied once as El Deyma. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that even implies that this group meets WP:BAND. Delete. (To save other editors the trouble of wading through it all, the closest thing to a usable source given is the Phoenix FM piece.) —Cryptic 17:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a charitable person, and wading in with a WP:CSD#A7 blunderbuss gives WP:GARAGE band writers the feeling we're all horrible ogres who delete stuff. While I optimistically hope the 7 days' grace for an AfD is enough to either salvage the article, or convince the creator there's no real benefit to having it. Either way, it's a better option. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 10:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Duffy (photographer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with no reliable secondary sources, just Duffy's own books and a Wordpress blog interview. No assertion that Duffy meets the special cases of WP:ARTIST. McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious self-promotion. Truth to the Fourth Power (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inheritied (literally, I suppose). Not seeing much coverage of the younger Duffy's work. Perhaps a case could be made if the Bowie book had been more widely discussed. —Noah 21:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Husain Husamuddin[edit]

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

All self published sources , POV and copy paste. Summichum (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam ^Sing! 12:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Mr Summichum and is a copyright violation.ரவி (talk) 14:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - A9 by Bbb23 –Davey2010^Talk 20:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Illness (album)[edit]

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

Unsourced except for primary sources, the article about the band did not survive AfD Ymblanter (talk) 11:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A9. The artist's page has just been deleted. Tagged for speedy. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (actually, never nominated)--Ymblanter (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum (French band)[edit]

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

Contested CSD A7 nomination, editor claims to be expanding article with relevant material from the French Wikipedia, however the article's been here for almost two months at this point so I feel that and afd is better suited to determine if the article should remain here. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE another admin declined the csd, I wold ask that this be closed then as he declined the csd for good cause after I had already created the page. I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VentureDNA[edit]

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

This article is essentially all press releases, with no particular claim to notability and a promotional flare its up here for the axe or a rewrite based on community consensus. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - fails Wikipedia:CORP. Additionally, for what its worth, it was created by an editor just banned for undisclosed paid editing (see User_talk:Johnmoor#January_2015) and the article's poor quality reflects that promotional basis. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above editor's reasons. --Gaff (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A list of the sources in the article:
1. VentureDNA (2009-10-12). "Press Release: VentureDNA Releases NewsInGraphs Mobile App for the Apple iPhone, Featuring Premium News Graphs and Charts in Partnership with McClatchy-Tribune Information Services". pr.com.
2. "About VentureDNA, LLC". Retrieved 2012-04-26.
3. "TMS, VentureDNA Unveil 'ToonsWare' Mobile App". Editor & Publisher (E&P). 2009-08-11. Retrieved 2012-04-26. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
4. Alan Gardner (2009-08-12). "VentureDNA and TMS partner to launch ToonsWare". The Daily Cartoonist (TDC). Retrieved 2012-04-26. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
5. "Awards & Summer Briefs - Tribune Media Services (TMS)". Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC). 2009-09-17. Retrieved 2012-04-26. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
6. "Yellowstone National Park Visitors Find New GeoRoamer iPhone/iPad App Invaluable Audio GPS Pocket Tour Guide". e-Global Travel News. 2010-07-02. Retrieved 2012-04-26. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
7. "Lake Forest College News: Get the College on your iPhone". LakeForest.edu. 2012-04-24. Retrieved 2012-05-05. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
8. "VentureDNA - Products". Retrieved 2012-04-26.
Cunard (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. After searching for sources on Google and reviewing the sources in the article (reproduced above), I have been unable to find reliable sources that would allow VentureDNA to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources primarily are press releases or passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Viper (rapper)[edit]

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

non-notable as per WP:MUSICBIO Deunanknute (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep very strange and well noted internet meme. I think having this article open will highly put into more investigation of just what in the world Viper is. His You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack album is a massive hit on the web as of 2014. He's on iTunes and even has a bio on MTV. Yet who he is is still a huge mystery and frankly is one big internet meme. He doubles as a notable artist for both in the way I see it Second Skin (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am the creator of this article. This article should be kept as it meets Wikipedia's notability guideline for music. The subject of this article adheres to the criteria for composers and lyricist outside mass media traditions by being frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. The subject of this article is also sourced with references in notable publications such as Chicago Reader, Noisey and MTV. I am still in the process of gathering additional sources for this subject; in the meantime, I have added a {{underconstruction}} template to the article to indicate this. Malcolmrevere (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's almost zero coverage of this subject in any music sites, and definitely zero in notable publication. I managed to find a grand total of three (3) mentions, all in non-notable music pubs that strongly resembled blogger sites. Clearly a vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references may 'look' like blogs at a glance (so do Billboard and Resident Advisor, I might add), but Sputnik Music here and Vice Media's Noisey here are good curated review sites. Earflaps (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability or significance, which is exactly why the article csd deleted on 20 January. The only difference between that and this is that if this ends up deleted it'll bar the subject from ever being back in wikipedia again, since recreation of afd deleted material is grounds for speedy deletion. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Only true if the exact content was posted twice, so an administrator would need to check to see the logs (i.e. the original deleted page). Otherwise, topics with new material can be reposted anytime significant new references have appeared. Earflaps (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I have given the article extensive cleanup and extended the sources to include Vocativ and Complex Magazine's hip-hop site Pigeons & Planes, some sources are indeed student media but college radio's importance in independent music scenes is well-established and Noisey and MTV are certainly important and notable sources for this subject matter. Making links to Lil B, Wesley Willis, and chopped and screwed (all backed up in references) in the article strengthens his position as part of several cult musical traditions, net culture and outsider music. Finding Viper lacking in notability only indicates a lack of interest in his relevant genres. Additionally, it is worth noting sources used range from 2013-2015, and You'll Cowards dates from 2008 - few internet memes have staying power of over a few weeks, let alone a year. If Why didn't you invest in Eastern Poland? has a page in 2015 Viper merits one on his meme status alone. Felineastatine (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe notability is sufficient and agree with the other users here that references in such publications as MTV and the significant culture notoriety that came with You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack creates justification. I find the current state of the article to be acceptable, and fully expect that it will be improved by other users as time goes on. --BackToThePast (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This article^WebCite from the Chicago Reader, this article^WebCite from Vice, this article^WebCite from Sputnikmusic, and this article from Vocativ, discuss in detail the subject and his work, so he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 17 (UK)[edit]

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

This article is about a 2016 program that "was" aired in the summer of 2015. Quite confusing, but also unsourced and WP:TOOEARLY. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Celebrity Big Brother - The nom should've been WP:BOLD and redirected himself since that's what happens all the time with these UK shows that get created early, Anyway way too early for an article. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A. It's not CBB, B. S16 hasn't even started yet so may aswell delete (Sorry I assumed S17 was the upcoming series but it's not). –Davey2010^Talk 01:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Misnamed and WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone3[edit]

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

Yet another CMS. No sign of it meeting WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CMS software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. An article on this CMS was deleted at previous Afd in 2009 as non-notable. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage of this software.Dialectric (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is missing, only one reference of its own website like this. No independent source found for this language. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 10:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BonNova[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:ORG. The group did nothing but announce that it was going to compete in the Lunar Lander Challenge, then withdraw at the last minute. There's no evidence that they ever worked on any other projects. The cited sources are mostly brief mentions or self-published, and I couldn't find any more substantial coverage of the group. As the Lunar Lander Challenge page already mentions the relevant facts about BonNova, there's no reason for them to have their own page. BenedictineMalediction (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any reliable sources. Basically it's the site for the prize (and I can't find anything about BonNove on the site), some blogs, "Zoominfo" which is an aggregator and has very little info on some of the team members, and the BonNova site itself. LaMona (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources are self published blogs, sites and videos like [16] , [17]. There are many claims about BonNova rocket team without any evidence like Lunar Lander Challenge was led by their chief engineer, Allen Newcomb..... In general, there is no indepedent sources and coverage for the subject. A.Minkowiski^{_Lets t@lk} 10:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under G4 by RHaworth. (NAC) ///EuroCarGT 05:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asif, Ali[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Subject's main achievement seems to be getting a scholarship. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A peculiarly named article with intrusive comma. The references given indicate that the subject is one "Asif Ali Laghari". A previous article under that name was deleted at AfD around 9 months ago, so this may qualify for CSD G4 if an Admin. is able to compare the content. Also, the retrieval dates on the current article are in September 2014 whereas the article was only created in January 2015, which may indicate there have been some reposts in between? AllyD (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And lo, here is another previous decision to delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif Laghari, deleted in June 2014. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here is another, even more recent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laghari Asif Ali. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This version is the 6th by my count. A very persistent individual who wants a WP article. Agricola44 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Speedy-delete CSD G4 in line with consensus on multiple prior occasions. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. We just deleted the 5th recreation of this article 2 weeks ago. Each time is a new SPA account who changes the article name a little bit in order to evade detection. I asked last time if there admin tools to combat this practice and will ask again, are there? I hope so, because this individual seems now to be determined at recreating this article ad infinitum. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Pretty clear consensus that this is a notable person only (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Wang[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Contains a lot of factual errors, no major coverage in reliable sources. MaRAno ^FAN 10:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this article, Drmies, delisted Lips Are Movin – an article the nominator has worked on extensively – as a good article a few hours before this nomination was made. Seems like a classic case of WP:REVENGE. I'm remaining neutral for now, though a quick Google search showed at least some coverage: [18] [19] –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing more sources that have been added, it's an obvious keep from me. Closer should consider a speedy keep – WP:SK#2 may be applicable as this nomination is disruptive, vexatious, and has extremely questionable motives. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Chase: yeah, that's kind of silly. It's ironic: this article was created after a prompt on Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers/Missing articles; I suspect either Rosiestep or Ipigott added it. Rosiestep, like you I'm always looking for the DYK and perhaps you can find a thing or two. Coverage is not so easy for a non-English writer, but we'll find it through the DBNL, for instance. With that many books in such a small country, she's bound to be notable, and I have no doubt that MaranoFan will do the decent thing and withdraw the nomination. I'll beef up the article, of course. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see any valid reason to delete. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. If the nominator had done a bit of googling, they would have learned that Lulu Wang was the "best-selling Dutch author of 1997". In addition to adding this gem, I've expanded the article with other content to include inline citations. Check out her Authority Control -- quite awesome, indeed. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Absurd nomination, clearly notable, and thankyou Drmies for the initial legwork..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Absurd nomination, clearly notable, and thankyou Drmies for the initial legwork. (thx for phrasing this Dr. B Victuallers (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 has requested it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cause and Effect of Heavy Metals (Biology)[edit]

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

This is a contested PROD. This article is written like an essay and the topic is already covered at the page Heavy metal (chemistry). Most of it is unsourced, so a merge would be difficult. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator failed to advance an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) –Chase (talk / contribs) 23:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Telephone (song)[edit]

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

★ Nacho ★ (Talk page) ★ 08:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:22, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Klaus[edit]

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

The following message was left on the talk page, I had my suspicions that this person was non-notable and tagged it as such. This page is up for deletion on the Portuguese Wikipedia, which is the home country, if he's not notable in Portugal, he's probably not-notable on the English Wikipedia either: -War wizard90 (talk) 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probable crosswikispam. Please see pt:William Klaus and it:William Klaus. It was put to delete at pt:Wiki. Yanguas (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 06:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league, nor senior international football. No indication of any other achievements that have garnered sufficient, significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Has not played in a WP:FPL or FIFA tier-1 match, and there is no independent coverage. WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG failed. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 01:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't played in a fully professional league and evidence points to the subject not meeting WP:GNG. Out of interest, has there been a discussion about whether Série C is fully professional? Hack (talk) 09:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a Fully Professional League and doesn't have any international caps. IJA (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siili Solutions[edit]

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

No apparent evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Very little coverage except for the stock offering. The website was very abstract – no press releases or case studies to find anything more. Hard to say what they do. – Margin1522 (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I know what they do. They rent their employees to other companies for temporary work. In other words, a Siili employee goes to work on another company's project, in that company's premises, working on their code and using their equipment. However, he/she is paid by Siili, not by the other company. I know this because I once worked in a company that leased an employee from Siili. I have no comment on the company's notability. JIP | Talk 10:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP notability req. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Room (unit)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY -War wizard90 (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT and my arguments/precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salt spoon (unit). — kikichugirl ^speak up! 06:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Delete and provide dab entry pointing to List_of_obsolete_units_of_measurement where it can be defined as an obsolete UK coal measure equalling 7 tons, sourced to OED as well as the dubious Cardarelli. No need to include conversion to metric units to 7 decimal places. PamD 09:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC), changed 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with a redirect is that it is highly unlikely someone will search for "Room (unit)" it makes more sense to have a link from Room (disambiguation), that links to List_of_obsolete_units_of_measurement. -War wizard90 (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me. PamD 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep the main article; merge the others; I rely on Cunard or Arxiloxos or I, JethroBT or one of the others supporting the merge to do so. As the other will become redirects, no deletions are necessary. . DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Rich[edit]

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

This is a WP:Walled garden of articles about Sharon Rich and her works on Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. For only one of Rich's works, Sweethearts (book), have I been able to find any third-party coverage at all. All the others, created and/or heavily edited by User:Maceddy, only cite primary sources, with a promotional undertone, with no improvement for years. No indication of notability for Rich herself or any of her works beyond Sweethearts. Huon (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ I was able to dig a little bit on Rich and Sweethearts through the LA Times:

MacDonald-Eddy: Stoking the Passions of New Fans
Biography Takes New Look at Famous Duo : Author Sharon Rich tells of longtime love affair between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy.
Kirkus Review

Two of these already appear on the Sweethearts (book) article. The first one is very substantive, but is mostly about the book and its development. That said, sources are generally sparse. Her name does not appear on the Knights Hospitallers website and I cannot confirm her Order of Malta award either. I don't see enough here for a biography, nor is there sufficient coverage of the other works. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Sweethearts: The Timeless Love Affair Onscreen and Off Between Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Turner, Patricia C. (1993-10-18). "Hearing Their Love Call". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  Now, almost 60 years later, Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy are alive and vibrant, at least in the hearts of those who pay $40 a year to belong to the Mac/Eddy Club, which is based at 101 Cedar Lane, Teaneck. There are 2,800 of these people, according to Sharon Rich, the Teaneck resident whose home serves as headquarters even as she serves as president.
  Rich co-founded the organization in 1977 with Diane Goodrich of New York City.
  ...
  Rich, for instance, is 39 years old; the vice president of Mac/Eddy is 34 - "youngsters," she called them.
  Rich's introduction to the subject is unusual.
  Growing up in a suburb of Los Angeles, she and others from her high school honor society did volunteer work at the Motion Picture Home.
  She was assigned to assist Jeanette MacDonald's older sister, Blossom Rock, in a play the home was putting on. Rock had suffered a stroke.
  "We became friends and hit it off," Rich said of Rock, a character actor from the 1930s under her stage name Marie Blake, and the grandmother to the Addams Family in the 1960s under her own name.
  ...
  Years later, Rich would complete a biography of the two movie idols, and the affair they had "on and off for 30 years."
2. Yampert, Rick de (2004-05-21). "Author claims to reveal 'Hollywood's biggest cover-up'". The Daytona Beach News-Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  Rich was a fledgling 16-year-old writer in her native Woodland Hills, in the Los Angeles area, when she met MacDonald's sister Blossom Rock, who had portrayed Grandmama in the TV show "The Addams Family." Rich had never heard of Jeanette MacDonald or Nelson Eddy.
  "When I learned from Blossom there had been a romance between Jeanette and Nelson, it meant nothing to me," Rich says. That is, until she "started reading in the film history books that they hated each other off-screen. I asked Blossom, 'Why are you telling me one thing and the books say
  something else?' When she started telling me the story, I realized this is one of Hollywood's biggest cover-ups, and one of its most tragic cover-ups."
  When Rich decided to plunge ahead and write a book about the affair, she met resistance. Eddy's widow, Ann, and MacDonald's widower, Gene Raymond, were still alive but wouldn't discuss the adulterous romance between their famous spouses. In fact, Rich says, Ann Eddy and Raymond "went overboard trying to keep the story suppressed." Was pursuing the book "harsh on them?" Rich asks herself. "I imagine so." But, she adds, she knew "the story was true" and "they were public figures."
  ...
  "Sweethearts," which was published in 1994 and updated for a new edition in 2001, includes 56 pages of documentation detailing Rich's sources, which included love letters, diaries, FBI records, personal interviews and unpublished memoirs.
  In the new edition's preface, Rich writes: "There are many people who were friends and still vehemently deny any relationship - because Jeanette and/or Nelson themselves never spoke of it to them or denied it themselves."
3. Bawden, Jim (1996-05-17). "Screen lovebirds took roles to heart". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  Rich is a New York writer who was editing an opera magazine when she get hooked on the "MacEddy" movies. "I became friends with Jeanette's sister, Blossom Rock, who told me about their clandestine love affair. Both of them had married other people and because it was the 1930s any scandal would have wrecked their careers. Jeanette's image was very much that of a lady. They went on loving each other to the day Jeanette died."
  Rich was able to obtain letters Nelson had written Jeanette revealing all but says "the reaction of some fans was furious. The British chapter threatened to picket me if I came to their convention. But others are relieved the truth is finally out. Nelson was quite a womanizer and Jeanette finally had had enough and married actor Gene Raymond for stability.
  "That didn't stop her from caring for Nelson. It's just like in their movies when they sing 'Indian Love Call,' isn't it?"
4. Brozan, Nadine (1995-02-17). "Chronicle". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
  The article notes:
  SHARON RICH, the author of three books about Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy, will be making a pilgrimage to Washington next Friday on behalf of the two crooners, who appeared together in eight films.
  It's not fair, Ms. Rich said, that the movie stars' likenesses have never been on a United States postage stamp. Ms. Rich, who is also head of Eddy-MacDonald fan club, has collected 20,000 signatures on a petition and will take them to the capital "to toss them on the desk of the person in charge of making decisions" at the Postal Service. In addition, she will bring with her a contingent of other fans who will march along with her singing "Indian Love Call," the couple's famous duet.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sharon Rich to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sharon Rich and merge/redirect the rest of the nominated articles to Sharon Rich. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article about Mac/Eddy Today:
Johnson, Sharon (1993-10-15). "Newsletter arrives // All you wanted to know about Eddy, MacDonald". The Patriot-News. Archived from the original on 2015-01-07. Retrieved 2015-01-07.
If another source about Mac/Eddy Today could be found, the subject would be notable.
Cunard (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Sharon Rich is truly all that notable in and of herself is debatable, but the topics of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald, which apparently constitute the bulk of her life's work, are most definitely notable so this pushes the discussion slightly toward KEEP imo, since she has gone to incredible lengths in the study of her topics, even going so far as to edit a book of letters between MacDonald and a pre-Eddy lover, one Irving Stone, not the writer but an early 20th century department store owner. Since she has created lots of factual content about famous people, I would say KEEP, since there is an article on Clifford Irving, whose most famous work was a bogus bio of another prominent Hollywood person, Howard Hughes. 2600:1004:B11B:BD40:6119:7316:FF63:1A49 (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:42, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sharon Rich - After reviewing the above arguments from Cunard, I agree that the biographical article on Rich does fulfill the notability criteria, and that the other articles up for deletion here can be merged or redirected to her bio page. Sweethearts can probably remain as an independent article. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 15:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aerospeed (Talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sharon Rich, merge the other AfD'd articles, per Cunard. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Remarkable Rocket[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced for many years, and I have not been able to find much in the way of reviews or other press about this band, or any indication that it meets the notability requirements in WP:BAND. There is a draft about Oscar Wilde's story The Remarkable Rocket ready to be moved into the encyclopedia, which I believe would be the primary topic, so if this discussion is closed as keep, IMO this page should be moved to The Remarkable Rocket (band). —Anne Delong (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. This is (was?) a very obscure band with very little reliable source coverage and apparently only one EP (no albums). They apparently contributed a song to a compilation album in 2008, [20] but this isn't enough to establish notability per WP:BAND. Everymorning talk 04:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator.—Anne Delong (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry! Have to strike out double !vote. Being nominator, you are supposed to favor deletion by default unless choose to withdraw. Yes, it's a bit different from RFA where nominator(s) cast their !vote. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Anupmehra. I've done this before, so I'm not sure how I managed to forget that.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Very obscure. All the sources on the web that I could find were derived from this article. – Margin1522 (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Geri-Ann Galanti[edit]

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

Article subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Sources listed (and found in journal search) are passing or trivial and do not meet WP:BIO either. Tgeairn (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -War wizard90 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice The subject seems like an average academic who might become eligible for a wiki page if she progresses in her career and meets the criteria set out at WP:PROF at some later point. BakerStMD T|C 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete perfectly average academic, falls short of notability. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Dimmick[edit]

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

As an academic, he does not meet WP:PROF - he is a college lecturer at Oxford (not even a fellow of one of the colleges) and I cannot see evidence that his writings have had a significant impact. As a former child actor, he does not meet WP:NACTOR. Prod removed in 2008, and the situation is no better now than it was then. Bencherlite ^Talk 09:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sole source is IMDB. Uncontroversial delete. Agricola44 (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uncontroversial delete; clearly not notable. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's probably enough here to save this from an A7 speedy deletion, but nothing in the article really asserts notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:08, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of industrial areas in Odisha[edit]

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

I believe that this is a case of WP:NOTDIRECTORY - we don't need to know every business/industry in a state Gbawden (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 15:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more of a reference than encyclopedic, couldn't find anything linking the companies to each other as a group Deunanknute (talk) 15:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Those companies that are notable and have an article should be contained within an apropriately named category. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Allsportsnews[edit]

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

Article about a social media brand. I am unable to find any reliable, independent sources about the subject. Fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. - Mr X 01:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 01:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find evidence of significant coverage from independent sources to meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Databases for psychologists[edit]

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

loosely defined; it's not the same as a List of psychology bibliographic databases. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow, this has been around for a long time considering that it's basically useless, has hardly any incoming links, and has never been substantially edited other than drive-by cleanup and tagging. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: yes, the base Category:Psychology would benefit from a clean-up... Fgnievinski (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: should we just create a category of "Psychology Databases" for all the blue links? That seems to be the main purpose of this page in any case. —Noah
Delete per nom. Many of the entries in this list wouldn't belong in a category "psychology databases", as they are much broader than psychology. --Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Close to half the entries are red links anyway and several others aren't primarily psych databases. Pubmed for example while it has lots of good psych articles is not just for psychology. Also, according to Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists: "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" which I don't think applies to this list. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo CMS[edit]

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

non-notable, no independent sources Deunanknute (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the objectiveness of the List_of_content_management_systems, as well as of Wikipedia itself, I needed to create the Galileo CMS stub article. The references I linked are from the project's official Web sites and projects development pages. If such sources are not recognized by Wikipedia as reliable and my article will be deleted because of that, please explain why in Wikipedia, and in List_of_content_management_systems exists many articles which sources are also only from the project's site and the development repositories? Here is a short list of such articles:

...

I will be thankful, if you explain what else need to be done in order to be create an Galileo CMS article for it to be included in the List_of_content_management_systems as the above mentioned articles are.

I have no affiliation with Galileo CMS. Moreover - I have also written another two stub articles (Strehler_(CMS) and ShinyCMS) concerning other content_management_systems written in Perl.

Iva.e.popova (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 21:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An in-development project whose available sources are announcements of the project proposal (such as a Linux Magazin brief article in 2012). No evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability at this point. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. All the references are announcements, blogs, or from the company itself. @Iva.e.popova: Regarding your question: " please explain why in Wikipedia, and in List_of_content_management_systems exists many articles which sources are also only from the project's site and the development " please see the article Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists Wikipedia is great but there is a lot of stuff that doesn't really meet the standards for wp:notability and you can't justify one bad article by pointing to others that are just as bad or even worse. I agree with you many of the articles you listed probably should be deleted as well. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Jarman[edit]

Does not appear notable per WP:NHOCKEY, as he never actually played a game in the NHL, didn't play in 200+ games in the AHL or CHL, and wasn't a first-round draft pick. Doesn't appear to have significant enough coverage to meet WP:NCOLLATH either (there are articles about a game-winning goal that he scored, but they're not significant coverage of him and fall under WP:BLP1E). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A player of no particular note in college and who played just a handful of games in the mid- and low minors; fails the GNG, certainly, as the sources are just routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 23:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. There is an objection on the talk page by the page creator who seems to think they meet the requirements, however pre-season games are not considered actual games so they don't meet the requirement as many non-notable players play in pre-season games. As for awards, you miss the link at the bottom of NHOCKEY that lists the leagues that that comment applies to. -DJSasso (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add College athletes Shortcut: WP:NCOLLATH College athletes and coaches are notable if they have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics, mentions in game summaries, or other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Examples would include head coaches, well-known assistant coaches, or players who:

3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team.

 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/hockey/2007-03-23-ncaa-hockey-roundup_N.htm
 search.espn.go.com/kevin-jarman/articles/9

I've seen him play, this player without a doubt should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.185.209 (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add NHL pre-season games are NHL sanctioned and as a result qualifies the subject for inclusion173.212.185.209 (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject did participate in NHL preseason games (which are NHL-sanctioned) while attending the Columbus Blue Jackets 2007 main camp, and as such satisfies another inclusion requirement.

Due to the subjects accomplishments and notoriety he should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.185.209 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC) He does satisfy the following with the Ontario Junior Hockey League's Stouffville Spirit... 4. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements); — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.212.185.209 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: To address 173.212.185.209's points:
First, while I've no idea what he means by "NHL-sanctioned" -- the National Hockey League using no such terminology for their games -- the fact is that only official regular-season or playoff games count towards any of the criteria. Of course many non-notable players appear in training camp games, but we don't consider them notable thereby.
Secondly, NHOCKEY sets forth its own criteria for judging the notability of collegiate athletes, which NCOLLATH does not supercede, in part because a one-size-fits-all approach is singularly ill-suited. For instance, United States Division I collegiate hockey is much more notable than Canadian collegiate hockey, which operates at little beyond club level. In any event, the news link he cited is the exact time of routine match coverage explicitly debarred by WP:ROUTINE as counting towards notability, and mentions Jarman only fleetingly, instead of the "significant coverage" the GNG requires.
Thirdly, the Ontario Junior Hockey League is not a "major junior" league, and cannot be considered under Criterion #4, even if Jarman had achieved "preeminent honors" there, which the sources in the article do not support.
Finally, I'm afraid that "I've seen him play" forms no part of notability criteria; Wikipedia operates on verifiable fact from reliable sources. Ravenswing 05:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The subject played not only NHL pre-season games but also regular season games. The subjects accomplishments are much more notable and impressive than a number of hockey players who have accepted articles on Wikipedia (many included in this Encyclopedia played for some obscure national team and never played NHL, AHL nor were ever OHL or NHL draft picks, the subject was and did). The subject did gain national media attention, it was in 2007 so perhaps your memory is misleading you. The nature of these arguments are somewhat subjective, however the subject did satisfy WP:NCOLLATH 3. Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. The goal made UMass school history and NCAA history.

Comment According to the NHL's own statistics, he never played a single regular season NHL game. His game-winning goal was a single event, and the coverage was of the event, not him as a player. Coverage of that one goal falls under the Subjects notable only for one event policy. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I disagree, by way of that goal and event Kevin satisfies 1. Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record. In the sense that he set a major record within the school and NCAA hockey. Embrace his accomplishments Wiki editors, its impressive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.26.128 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That criteria clearly states it must be a national award or a major division 1 record. Setting a school record is quite a bit less important than a national or league record. And besides, what record did he set exactly? Scoring an important goal is not "setting a record" -- all goals are worth 1 point in the record books. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add Satisfies WP:NHOCKEY 4. Achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star, All-American) in a lower minor league, in a major junior league, or in a major collegiate hockey league (Note: merely playing in a major junior league or major collegiate hockey is not enough to satisfy inclusion requirements); His overtime goal is a UMass Minutemen ice hockey record and NCAA record that still stands to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.52.96 (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And nowhere in those criteria does it mention having a record is enough for an article. That being said even if a player meets these criteria they still need to meet WP:GNG which he does not. -DJSasso (talk) 19:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)n[reply]

Add The subjects accomplishments within the sport merit acceptance within Wikipedia. As noted by a number of users above, the subject does satisfy a number of criteria within WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH. As a member of Wikipedia and an avid user I'd certainly like to see the subject accepted, the subject is well deserving of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki contributor 100 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By "a number of users" do you mean the various IPs you used? -DJSasso (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Ravenswing notes, there really only seems to be routine coverage and trivial mentions. He is, ultimately, merely one of a thousand people who's dreams died prematurely. It is a shame, but I do not see a pass of NHOCKEY, and certainly not one of GNG. Reso lute 20:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add. One of only four Stouffville Spirit players to have ever been drafted by the NHL (http://www.draftsite.com/nhl/cchl/stouffville/spirit/617/) and youngest UMass Minutemen division 1 ice hockey player to have ever been drafted by the NHL (http://www.umassathletics.com/sports/m-hockey/mtt/kevin_jarman_57227.html). As a point of reference for consideration for inclusion, Daniel Spivak has his own article within Wikipedia, Daniel played for the Israel national team, division 1 and "AA" pro hockey. Certainly impressive in its own right. However, Daniels accomplishments fall short of Kevin's. Kevin played hockey at the highest level and was an NHL draftee, set a division 1 school record, et cetera. The point being there's a number of professional hockey players who have accepted articles within Wikipedia whose accomplishments within the sport fall short of Kevin's. Certainly, Kevin is well deserving of acceptance and inclusion. I would disagree with the above mentioned comments, Kevin does satisfy a number of criteria within both WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NCOLLATH, as subjective as some of the criteria may be I believe he does meet the requirements. I nominate him for acceptance and inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.26.128 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Add http://sports.yahoo.com/highschool/hockey/recruiting/player-Kevin-Jarman-21084, http://pointstreaksites.com/view/ojhl/news-21/news_143940 http://theahl.com/stats/player.php?id=1948 http://www.uscho.com/stats/player/mid,8800/kevin-jarman/, http://www.nhl.com/ice/player.htm?id=8470696, http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasyhockey/players/playerpage/1282432/kevin-jarman

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/college/hockey/2007-03-23-ncaa-hockey-roundup_N.htm, http://espn.go.com/nhl/player/_/id/4889/kevin-jarman, http://icehockey.wikia.com/wiki/list_of_Columbus_Blue_Jackets_draft_picks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.26.128 (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of those are just sports profiles. None of them are articles that talk in depth about him enough to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only vote for keeping the article is from the same person who has an admitted personal connection with the subject of the article. He clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Deadman137 (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add I have no personal connection with the subject whatsoever. I know of him and his athletic notoriety, that's all.

Add I do not know Kevin personally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.52.96 (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So when you said on Ahecht's talk page on February 1, 2015 and I quote "I've reached out via email and asked him about this, he's unsure as to why its not documented on hockeydb or NHL.com, but he was aware that both bodies incorrectly documented this activity." That didn't establish a relationship of some kind exists? Deadman137 (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Add As a hockey enthusiast and having seen him play both at UMass and with the Columbus Blue Jackets system, I find it odd and disturbing that his article is being considered for deletion. He reached the pinnacle of Ice Hockey and accomplished some impressive and remarkable things along the way. He reached a level that only a small minority ever do, perhaps your criteria for inclusion needs to be seriously rethought and reconsidered. His accomplishments outlined in his article (OHL and NHL draftee, signed and played within an NHL team, record and history setter at a major division 1 program, et cetera) certainly are sufficient for nomination and inclusion within this encyclopedia. Without a doubt, he qualifies to be included within Wikipedia, he's a well known individual within the hockey ranks and his accomplishments speak for themselves. Much of this criteria is subjective in nature and he satisfies a number of the criteria as outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.52.96 (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (sighs, rolling his eyes) I'd add the warning template about AfD not being a head count, but I don't think that'd deter the sock/meatpuppet anon IP flurry one bit, and it's not as if the closing admin's going to pay attention to their nonsense anyway. Ravenswing 03:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnock's dilemma[edit]

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

This doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:58, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning perhaps very slightly to retention. Warnock's own posts are of course not relevant to notability. The Wired source that's buried in the external links section is, at best, just this side of triviality. But there are also better-than-paragraph discussions of the topic in at least a couple of print books (and I weakly suspect that offline magazine sources in the field may have further things to say). I'm uncertain that they are sufficient. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday, Ryan (2012). Trust Me, I'm Lying: Confessions of a Media Manipulator. Portfolio. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-1-59184-553-9.
Rosenberg, Scott (2009). Say Everything: How Blogging Began, What It's Becoming, and Why It Matters. Crown Publishers. pp. 259–260. ISBN 978-0-307-45136-1.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. (BTW, not a dilemma, and trivial, too.) No independent sources which discuss the topic in depth. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that its poorly worded and trivial but so are a lot of topics. That's irrelevant to whether it is notable which I think it just barely is. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the cites suggested above, which seem adequate to support the article as it stands. A bit of searching around indicates that this term has had considerable uptake even if its RS coverage is not quite what one would hope for. Seems like a useful thing to have an entry on. Alternatively, perhaps transwiki for merging into wikia:communitymgt:Warnock's Dilemma, if that's still a thing that happens.-- Visviva (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to be WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes GNG so thus NOTABILITY is met. –Davey2010^Talk 04:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:GNG. SoloUnEditor (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though really the appropriate thing would have been for no one to comment at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found it in the books cited as references. Seems notable. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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