Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 June	11 June >

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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis J. Gilmore[edit]

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

No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to First American Corporation as results here, here, here and here found nothing to suggest independent notability and may currently be known for First American. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only find directory listings and routine announcements. Article created by a now-blocked account. LaMona (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 15 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Campisi[edit]

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

No non-inherited notability. Reads like a CV. -- haminoon (talk) 23:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find no suitable sources, just mentions in relation to his position at Kohl's. LaMona (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: article created by a now-blocked account. LaMona (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:54, 15 June 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carl M. Casale[edit]

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

No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to CHS Inc. as my searches instantly found results here and here for CHS and it seems this is one of his only CEO positions. SwisterTwister talk 00:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only possible RS is the Twin Cities newspaper, but that is a short article and not enough for notability. LaMona (talk) 04:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Charles Zucaro[edit]

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

No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources, only routine listings. Created at same time as a number of other CEO pages by a now-blocked account. LaMona (talk) 04:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 June 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. (NAC)--Antigng (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Chen Gang[edit]

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

While the subject's life and death could be called tragic, they are not notable enough per our guidelines to make a fully-fledged tragedy. There's some newspaper coverage on this person but that's all there is, and all of that is from basically right after his death. In other words, there seems to be no longterm importance. In addition, since the man wasn't notable in any other way, though his jobs or positions, it's a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E. Drmies (talk) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I'm not able to find any long-term coverage, except for the open letter written to him after he died. This is better sourced than the Chinese article (zh:陈刚_(教师)), but I can't find the lasting impact. I did just the basic search I could do; if anyone is able to find more, I'll change to keep. This is a well-researched and written article for the most part so it would be a shame if it had to go. —Мандичка^YO 😜 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I thank above editors for their comments, although I do plead for them to reconsider. I actually stumbled upon this story while doing research for an article on a completely unrelated "Chen Gang" - and came across the dab page on the Chinese Wikipedia; as such I hope you can understand that I have no other interest whatsoever for writing about this seemingly unremarkable mid-level functionary except for the encyclopedic value it brings and the deeper issues that it touches upon.
My peers can attest to the fact that of my 12 years on Wikipedia I have never so thoroughly researched for an article and had it nominated for deletion.
That aside, I definitely can see where the above two editors are coming from if we were to rely on the letter of our policies, and in any case I am happy to submit to consensus. But consider a few things. The discussion on Chinese social media and Chinese overseas websites for this event was ubiquitous after it occurred. Duowei and Boxun, two of the most read Chinese-language news portals outside of China, covered the story on their front pages. That the only major reporting belonged to the Southern media group points to concerted efforts at censorship by the state, and we indeed have evidence that authorities shut down social media posts about the incident shortly after it occurred. The 'open letter', penned with a remarkable amount of self-censorship, was the only essay speaking to its lasting impact, not because there was no demand for long-term coverage, but because there was a censorship regime in place to prevent long-term coverage. Thirdly, if we were to delete this well researched article using the criteria cited above, then by extension we also should consider deleting 2011 Huizhou refinery explosion incident, Xinyang bus fire, and the 2011 Yunnan protest, none of which had any long-term impact. Fourth, it's worthwhile mentioning that there should be no doubt that this would be a 'speedy keep' on the Chinese Wikipedia, and the corresponding article on wikiclone Baidu Baike has several hundred thousand hits. One might simply consider how something like the Disappearance of Natalee Holloway might be seen to a group of Chinese Wikipedia users to see how unremarkable this death might seem to be trivial to one group but extraordinarily notable to another group. I hope the editors proposing deletion can also appreciate why I may have chosen to create this article being fully aware of Wikipedia's Notability guidelines and why I would see it as worthy of encyclopedic value and readership. Thank you for your consideration! Colipon+(Talk) 02:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Colipon, no one is impugning your motives--that's not what this is about. But we cannot go on conjecture, esp. if that conjecture is "there would have been more coverage had it not been for...". Now, that the article is "well-researched" may well be true, but the fact remains that there's not much to research, as you yourself said. Conversation on websites and social media doesn't matter--what matters is what reliable sources, preferably in print have to say. The comparison with other articles isn't that relevant anyway: WP:OTHERSTUFF, and if it were up to me 2011 Yunnan protest would be deleted as well, if there was nothing to add to the existing coverage. Bottomline is, we need coverage. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 00:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to change to keep. My feeling was that while the open letter (more than a year after his death) was printed in many news outlets, it was done so without any additional media analysis that I would have liked to see. However, I think editor Colipon makes a good point about the censorship possibly being a factor. I want to avoid any systemic bias that may come to play because we expect the usual in-depth media analysis that we have in the free press. So I will change to keep, as I do think the open letter indicates its long-term notability and coverage, giving that it addressed (analyzed) Guanxi in a way that actually was quite significant. —Мандичка^YO 😜 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the thing. (or one possible thing) If we are going to say "keep" based on the thought that there would have been more coverage had there been no official censorship, then we are basically denying our mandate that we base our decisions on reliable sourcing. Moreover, Western media are of course quite keen to report on things suppressed in China--so if we can draw conclusions from what we don't know, a more immediate conclusion could well be that since this wasn't picked up, it's not notable. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Colipon. --TIAYN (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a real fence sitter. Even if all claims are substantiated, at present, we are going to have trouble with this being an independent entry as opposed to an entry/section in an article on "corruption" in contemporary China. At present, this may be a galvanizing testimony to corruption and a rallying point for the pursuit of reform, but we're betting on the future to suggest that, as an independent article, it's. . . . It's on the line, either way. Perhaps we should default to keep in matters of doubt, though. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try to keep the article balanced enough so it is not entirely certain whether this was an act of a deranged man or in fact a hero pushed to die by a corrupt system. I mention corruption because I believe it is a notable view, but the article doesn't explicitly stand behind this thesis. In any case, thanks for your input! Colipon+(Talk) 20:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some arguments for deletion, but I think WP:BLP1E would call for deletion of an article about Chen Gang, the person, but not "Suicide of Chen Gang.". That is, Chen Gang the person is not notable, but a protest suicide which is part of a general pattern is. The case might be further strengthened by creating a category something like "Anti-regime protests in the PRC" -- that's not quite right, but I think you can see the idea. Or maybe an article to anchor the category? That is, it would be good to offer readers other pieces in a general pattern.

Another consideration in my mind comes from looking at Colipon's "Contributions," which include a number of articles in this general area, plus mention on the Talk Page of deleting articles for non-notability. This leads me to think that it is reasonable to give the benefit of any doubt to Colipon's judgment. ch (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This nomination is not without merit, but Colipon's argument and comparison of the case with Disappearance of Natalee Holloway are convincing. This does appear to be a notable case that's been widely covered in both Chinese and international (albeit Chinese-language) media. Disclosure: I've collaborated with Colipon on several articles in the past, so my views may be biased. -Zanhe (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't read Mandrin, but the sources have in depth coverage of something. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 15 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas W. Stotlar[edit]

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

No evidence of non-inherited notability. Reads like a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found no significant sources. As CEO of a company he is quoted, but none of the articles are about him. LaMona (talk) 03:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After poking around, I also discovered that this article was created by a now-blocked user, User:Editingright. The same user created a number of articles for CEO's where the references are quite lean. LaMona (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking the in depth coverage in reliable sources needed. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 15 June 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 00:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

André Calantzopoulos[edit]

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

No evidence of non-inherited notability. Reads like a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article was already kept just recently and the argument was valid —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless it is determined that CEO's of large companies are automatically notable, this does not pass WP:GNG in terms of sources. Also, yet another CEO article by blocked sock User:Editingright LaMona (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (I was going to say tentative, as I don't have much experience with these sorts of bios but wiki tells us to be bold...:)). Meets WP:GNG and probably also WP:ANYBIO - "2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Calantzopoulos' specific field is the tobacco industry. Here are some of the numerous citations brought up in a google search (could more experienced editors please comment on them, specifically those that are deemed not useable): [1] - 'Tobacco CEO: If you start smoking, try this' - interview discussing new product,[2] - 'Philip Morris (PM) Names André Calantzopoulos as CEO' - "Under their combined leadership, PMI has solidified its position as the largest and most profitable international tobacco company," and "Under André’s leadership as Chief Operating Officer, we have successfully increased our revenues even in difficult operating and economic environments.." ,[3] - 'Plain packaging and currency swings weigh on Philip Morris' - article discusses effect of plain packing on PM and quotes Calantzopoulos on what PM will do, [4] - 'philip morris international (PM:New York Consolidated): André Calantzopoulos' - resumé (I wonder how much checking these organisations make?) ,[5] - 'Andre Calantzopoulos CEO at Philip Morris' short bio and breakdown of his earnings from PM - at over usd14mill does this show from a monetary pov his commercial notability? ,[6] - 'Philip Morris Readies Aggressive Global Push Division Spinoff Enables Blitz of New Products; High-Tar Smokes in Asia' - analysis of PM new products and reorganisation with quotes from Calantzopoulos. Of course, this article could also be merged into Philip Morris International if deemed not warrenting a stand-alone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 June 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evelyn Keppel[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apologies I was a little overzealous in nominating articles by a paid editor. -- haminoon (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keppel played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League and therefore meets WP:BASE/N. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu. Alex (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:BASE/N pass, per Muboshgu. Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Declare safe. Since we keep male pros who've played in one lousy MLB game, she more than qualifies with a full season under her belt. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability guidelines. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASE/N criterion #3. Rlendog (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explicitly passes WP:NBASE as the league she played in is listed there. --Clean-up-wiki-guy (talk) 00:45, 13 June 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Spirit[edit]

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

Not notable. -- haminoon (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apologies I was a little overzealous in nominating articles by a paid editor. -- haminoon (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes it is.[7][8][9][10]. Colapeninsula (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - nominated for Pulitzer Prize!!! —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK, here are some references (thanks also to above editors): [11] - pages 55 to 59 from Deforming American Political Thought: Ethnicity, Facticity, and Genre by Michael Shapiro - analysis of book, [12] - Visions for a New World: A Journey through Leslie Marmon Silko’s Almanac of the Dead and Gardens in the Dunes and Linda Hogan’s Mean Spirit and Solar Storms by Kendra Gayle Lee of Florida State University - Masters thesis, [13] - SILENCE, ABSENCE, AND MYSTERY IN LINDA HOGAN'S MEAN SPIRIT, SOLAR STORMS, AND POWER by KATHRYN E. ERICKSON of University of Central Florida - another Masters thesis, [14] - Native American Writers of the Plains by Oklahoma Humanities Council - small (5 line) review of book, [15] - Mean Spirit- Lyrical And Yet Disturbing - book review in Orlando Sentinel, [16] - Intertextual Twins and Their Relations: Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit and Solar Storms by Catherine Rainwater from Modern Fiction Studies Volume 45, Number 1, Spring 1999, pages 93 to 113 - need a subscription, [17] - Alice Walker's 'The Color Purple' / Hogan's 'Mean Spirit' / Selfhood, term paper from PlanetPapers - shows that book is studied in schools/colleges, [18] - Worlds in Collision: Mean Spirit by Linda Hogan, LA Times - book review, [19] - List of Pulitzer prize winners and finalists - this book a finalist in 1991, [20] - States Of Being In The Dark Removal And Survival In Linda Hogan's Mean Spirit by Eric Gary Anderson of Oklahoma State University from Great Plains Quarterly Vol. 20, No. 1, Winter 2000, pp. 55-67 - in depth review of book. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:16, 11 June 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 May_Swenson#Bibliography. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Cage of Spines[edit]

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

Not notable. -- haminoon (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to May_Swenson#Bibliography. I can't really find anything to really show that this book merits an article outside of Swenson's main article. Other than the Kirkus review the mentions are predominantly in passing to Swenson's work as a whole. ([21], [22]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 15 June 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magical Mystery Tours[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Appears to be advertising. -- haminoon (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Apologies I was a little overzealous in nominating articles by a paid editor. -- haminoon (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Not notable as per WP:NB. Not quite enough advertising for speedy deletion under G11. BU Rob13 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - as per below. BU Rob13 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems like it meets point 1 of WP:NB [23], [24], [25], [26] —Мандичка^YO 😜 23:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 11 June 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 per WP:SNOW. With zero sources, this is at best WP:TOOSOON and at worst, a hoax. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shut In The Movie[edit]

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

Unremarkable movie not due to debut until September of 2016. No claim of significance (nor sources found) regarding notability of the production itself (per WP:NOTFILM). If nothing else, it's simply WP:TOOSOON. --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. BU Rob13 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fantasy WP:MADEUP project; any project with Taraji B. Henson would have plenty of sources the moment it came out, and all of this doesn't sound real. Nate • (chatter) 23:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or even speedy as a hoax. While there is a 2015 film called Shut In it has nothing to do with the mess of an article nominated here. BTW if a nineteen year old can pull that cast together than the must be a wunderkind. More likely this is wishful thinking on JUMOND RANDALL's part. Now there is nothing wrong with that - if you are gonna dream then dream large - but the article does not belong here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 00:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax that will be on a double bill with my epic film, "They Laughed at Me at the University." Hithladaeus (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being unsourcable and failing WP:V and thus also WP:NF Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 04:58, 11 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Gallitano[edit]

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

Appears to be a resume. No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless it is determined that CEO's of large companies are automatically notable, this does not pass WP:GNG in terms of sources -- the only sources are directory listings and announcements of appointment. Also, yet another CEO article by blocked sock User:Secretsources LaMona (talk) 03:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete in depth coverage in independent reliable sources is a prerequisite. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 15 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alan S. Armstrong[edit]

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

Appears to be a resume. No non-inherited notability. -- haminoon (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant RS - only directory listings and one minor Q&A. Created by now-blocked account that was creating masses of CEO-type articles, none that meet notability. LaMona (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete in depth coverage in independent reliable sources is a prerequisite. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:18, 15 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Borgas[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet non-inherited notability criteria. Appears to be a resume. -- haminoon (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by a blocked sockpuppet and public relations editor [27], SPI. Also no indication of notability or that this will ever provide an encyclopedic verifiable biography rather than a resume or a repeat of info that belongs at Lonza Group or Israel Chemicals. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:56, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most listed references are to the company site, directory listings, or are press releases. I don't find any RS. LaMona (talk) 04:56, 14 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TLC178[edit]

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

Company fails WP:NCORP, with only sources being to press releases announcing partnership with soccer teams. Conifer (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the current English sources, my searches found nothing good with the best being some News links (non-English). Unless good non-English sources are found, I'm not seeing notability. SwisterTwister talk 01:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it feels like there should be soruces, but I'm not seeing them... Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 15 June 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 A7 by Bbb23.(non-admin closure) Altamel (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjin Tisha[edit]

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

Non-notable model, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. An A7 tag was removed by a new editor different from page creator. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I found were blogspam, obviously not a reliable source. Conifer (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snow. This would have absolutely been A7'd but for a user whose only contrib has been to remove the speedy tag -- something which I intend to investigate further. --Non-Dropframe _talk 22:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A7 - Tagged as such as she's obviously non-notable and I have a feeling the creator of this crap is related to her, The CSD remover was probably the creator too, I should also point out re-tagging is allowed ... It's just re-prodding that isn't. –Davey2010^Talk 22:53, 10 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern afro-caribbean art[edit]

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

Suspected original research. Article cites no sources that establish "Modern Afro-Caribbean art" as a recognized art movement or period, nor can I find any on GBooks.

Lo real maravilloso is an existing literary concept, but is already covered here; I don't think that's an appropriate redirect target for "modern Afro-Caribbean art", though. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 21:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only now saw this edit by Writ Keeper. This article used to be a personal essay, of which only a side remark remained. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's redundant apparently. According to the The Oxford History of Western Art, "Afro-Caribbean art can be called modern because, aside from the work of European itinerant artists, there is sparse evidence of local art production in any of the islands prior to the 20th century. ... But plantation economies could ill afford art in the leisurely sense, so their early forms of expression were manifested in performance art such as carnival. Afro-Caribbeans have only recently seen what they do as art. Caribbean populations took long to recognise the value of black creativity that had been promoted by Europeans in Paris, New York and London after 1914." —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 15 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Antony Waldhorn[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Only source shows they exist, not anything more. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 22:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. In addition, the article reads like an advertisement for the individual; "tough task to accomplish in music", "has excelled in", "Standing out among his fellow producers", "His competence on music began at the tender age of six", "as he excelled on the French horn and piano, which showed his potential as a young prodigy"; I could go on. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until and unless non-self-generated, non-cruft sources emerge, I presume this article fails WP:BIO and all relevant subsets thereof. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - My searches found no good coverage with the best being a few News. SwisterTwister talk 01:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:21, 15 June 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 Generic top-level domain#New top-level domains. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 01:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

.codes[edit]

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

Non-notable gTLD - only 4500 registered domains according to the article itself. The article itself is mostly unrelated material (generic stuff about gTLDs) and the rest is original research and original synthesis (e.g. "designated for computer programming associations such as the Python Software Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation"). PRODded once as "NN new TLD spam"; PROD removed by article creator. Kolbasz (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Generic top-level domain#New top-level domains like many of these others: List of Internet top-level domains#ICANN-era generic top-level domains —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Wikimandia. The article does nothing to establish notability of the subject, and much of the content is unsourced off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this is usually the norm for these here anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 22:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Non-notable. 4500 domains insufficient. Faizan (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No evidence that this tld is more notable than others. Maproom (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:44, 11 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G. Steven Farris[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is just a resume, did the guy actually do anything besides hold some jobs and get paid? The two awards are regional and minor and do not confer notability per WP:BIO. — Brianhe (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes reads like a CV. If this guy is notable the article doesn't show it. -- haminoon (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe move to Apache Corporation - My searches found nothing to suggest independent notability aside from some News links. SwisterTwister talk 01:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 13 June 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Curt Sobel[edit]

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

Article about composer who as a team won an Emmy in 1992. After searching I could find no other sources to support notability except for a confirmation of the Emmy win. Understanding this win was in 1992 and may make it difficult to find online sources to support an article on this topic. At this point this article fails WP:GNG and the single Emmy win with no other coverage I believe makes it fail WP:COMPOSER as well. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - pretty clearly meets WP:COMPOSER point 4, "Has written a composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers.". Has a lengthy resume' at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0811749/ and Google shows that he pops up in the news every now and then (e.g. http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6436604/get-on-up-oscar-bid-sound-editing-process-james-brown-film ), albeit usually in specialised reporting on movies. Adpete (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets Criteria #1 of WP:ENTERTAINER His very prolific career as a music editor and composer includes 126 film and TV credits, 32 soundtrack credits, and 20 composer credits.[28] He has also been nominated for two Primetime Emmy Awards (winning once), and has also won two Golden Reel Awards, including winning the Golden Reel for Best Sound Editing in Feature Film for the 2004 Adademy Award winning film Ray, and again for the 2014 film Get on Up.[29] Dolovis (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Winning an EMMY is enough notability to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:19, 13 June 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan_Fredinburg[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria for notablity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet1440 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nothing changed since last AfD, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dan_Fredinburg Just citing notability seems to be off, since notability has been established, you just have to read the 1st AFD. It appears that user Comet1440 did not read the 1st AFD. Notability has been established for his work and media presence. There are also still news articles written, which mention him. prokaryotes (talk) 07:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep although the primary thing that makes this personal notable is that he died young in a dramatic and tragic way. However, his death was widely covered in the news media, so there are ample sources to support an article. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is sound and well-sourced. Subject continues to be mentioned in accounts of Everest avalanches and their aftermath. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am troubled that the nominator of this 2nd AfD would stoop to altering my vote and comment while deleting other "'Keep" votes. It is THIS offending editor, and not the Dan Fredinburg article, which should be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. —Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 04:36, 13 June 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to Heading 270 Degrees[edit]

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

Awards are questionable, (who awarded them?) Page only has a few reliable sources. Notability is questionable. Ism schism (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is reviewed in this phd thesis submitted to the university of Manchester. Some other sources such as this, this and this one have reviewed or mentioned the subject. By the way, I'd like to know what the nominator means by 'questionable'? I do verify the awards mentioned here as a bilingual. Consequently, the subject is notable per WP:BKCRIT #1&2. Mhhossein (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the book is the subject of instruction in the University of Pennsylvania (notable per WP:BKCRIT #4). Mhhossein (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the two reasons cited above.--DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject clearly passes WP:N, having been discussed in depth by independent reliable sources. However, this particular article on it was created by the sockpuppet of a particularly problematic POV-pusher and copyright violator. I would have nominated it for deletion under CSD G5 but for the fact that it has many subsequent edits (by editors who I hope are not also sockpuppets). If the current article is to be kept, it should be carefully checked for POV issues and copyright violations. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mhhossein and because article clearly passes WP:BOOK I grant that it is POV and a generally lousy article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:27, 15 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Nohse[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. References are company's home page and a directory entry. The (unsourced) assertion of notability is that they supply water for 3 million people, but I'm not sure whether that alone suffices to make them notable. ubiquity (talk) 18:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is spam, and no independent sources indicate notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless good Romanian sources are found, my searches found nothing aside from one News and two Books (other searches at browser, highbeam and thefreelibrary found nothing). SwisterTwister talk 01:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a run of the mill company. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 17 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Notionaries (rock band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. All of the sources cited (and that I found elsewhere) are either unreliable (blogs, press releases, etc.), merely give a summary of the band and the music it has published, or simply mentions the band in passing. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's true, there are no reliable independent sources that significantly cover this subject. Almost all results from Google News search are from a site called "Music Indistry News Network", which is, as I understand, used by the bands to promote themselves. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Multiple searches found no good coverage aside from results at News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 01:28, 12 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Social Wavelength[edit]

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

trivial awards, and no indication of actual notability. The inclusion of the bios of the executives and the names of the rest of the staff and the addresses of all the offices shows promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most of the article's content as copyright violations from the sources cited. Hut 8.5 21:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as basically spam. CorporateM (Talk) 19:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches here, here, here and here found no good coverage. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 12 June 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. Consensus is for article retention. Of note is that topics can be notable per having received significant coverage in independent reliable sources despite their developmental status. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor[edit]

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

this is a concept that was developed 11 years ago. it never got further. Ysangkok (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Even though it was a failed project, there are many sources that describe it. The number of sources, no doubt partly because of the involvement of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is sufficient to support notability. I have added another external link and an inline citation. The article requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there's not much here when you consider it's obsolete (apparently). However, it would possibly make sense to have a more generic article about portable nuclear power. There's more info about it here - Army Nuclear Power Program and here [30]. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whether or not the design was ever realized doesn't matter - only if it's notable or not. In this case it seems to be, from the provided mainstream coverage and Scholar hits. Kolbasz (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This device is notable because its design and planning has significant coverage in reliable sources, even if never actually built. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:44, 16 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Peterson (journalist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television journalist, essentially just a thinly veiled rewrite of his "our personalities" profile on the website of his own employer and citing no reliable source coverage at all. A journalist is not automatically eligible for a Wikipedia article just because you can point to primary source verification that he exists, but must be the subject of independent coverage which verifies that he passes WP:JOURNALIST for something. But that's lacking — I just did a ProQuest search, and even adding extra search keys ("journalist", "CBC", "Global", "Business News Network", etc.) to filter out Laci Peterson's murderer I still only got hits relating to Laci Peterson's murderer if I got anything at all. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if real sources ever start showing up. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete on two accounts, there's no claim of him doing anything of particular note (apart from a good professional job as a journalist) and, secondly, the article is 90% a word-for-word copyvio of his CBC pressroom profile. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RESUME and COPYVIO. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to CBC News Network#Anchors - My searches found nothing to suggest there's independent notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 04:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 13 June 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 draft, my searches found nothing to suggest this is notable so it can be drafted for now and moved again when notable (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 01:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbul app[edit]

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

non notable--refs are either nonspecific or PR DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page has been moved to Draft:Bulbul app. ansh 666 10:55, 11 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mustoi Balouch[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I have not done a search of non-English sources but with that limitation there is almost nothing out there that mentions this tribe. What does, and is reliable, comprises passing mentions about individuals who were victims of sex crimes etc rather than about the tribe. Sitush (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is an older version of the same topic, with the same notability problems:

Delete both. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Originally an orphaned article from the "let's add to Wikipedia some badly written local stuff nobody outside my [red linked] village somewhere in rural Pakistan knows about"-department; improvements to date have been mostly trimming away excess text about non-notable clan members etc. I originally nominated this for prod, but that was declined through technicality. Keep an eye for any copies and socks as this was pushed somewhat aggressively to WP. If this somehow survives, then I think Mastoi needs to be a redirect to Mustoi or other way around. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both articles. No sources on either, and can't find sources that would confirm notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 13 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diego de Souza Gonçalves Gusmão[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in Campeonato Paulista. This does not confer notability since only Paulista A1 is fully pro; his appearances were in A2 and A3. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy [[WP:GNG|GNG]. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:00, 16 June 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. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mbilla Etame[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy [[WP:GNG|GNG]. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:01, 16 June 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. The major argument for keeping is that they're listed on an exchange, but per WP:LISTED, that's not enough to meet WP:CORP -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WH Ireland[edit]

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

Non-notable company, they don't list on the main London Stock Exchange (which would be an actual claim of notability), no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WH Ireland is a publically quoted company and member of the London Stock Exchange ("LSE"). The organization's shares can be traded and has a share price. ^[1] The LSE is an international exchange Group operating a broad range of international equity, bond and derivatives markets, of which the LSE in one. ^[2]. WH Ireland is quoted on the LSE AIM market which is the London Stock Exchange’s international market for smaller growing companies. A wide range of businesses including early stage, venture capital backed as well as more established companies join AIM seeking access to growth capital.^[3] Some additional links are given below to information of WH Ireland's listing on the LSE.

http://m.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/mobile/stocks/summary.html?tidm=WHI
https://www.google.co.uk/finance?q=LON:WHI
http://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=WHI

Symon Walmsley at WHIreland (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC) — Symon Walmsley at WHIreland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ "W.H. Ireland Group plc: LON:WHI quotes & news – Google Finance". google.co.uk.
^ "What we do". London Stock Exchange Group.
^ "AIM". londonstockexchange.com.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There are some sources[31][32][33] in the article, but they are just not substantial enough to meet WP:CORP. CorporateM (Talk) 19:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure trading firm of insufficient notability under WP:CORP.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chandigarh HandBall Association[edit]

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

non notable club. deleted once as a7, recreated. nominated for a7 again, declined. two refs, both WP:ROUTINE Gaijin42 (talk) 14:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So far as I can tell from the article itself, it is a regional handball association beneath a district handball association in a national handball association. The article is a truly staggering redlink factory, suggesting that, if it wasn't a hatrack in purpose, it at least has that promise. Notability seems to come from its routine function as itself, rather than any discussion of its achievements. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 00:21, 17 June 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 Final Fantasy VII. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shinra Electric Power Company[edit]

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

Notability not established. Largely in-universe description of a plot item in a video game, with references to books published by the game's publisher, an FAQ that doesn't discuss the topic in any detail and a self-published translation of part of one of the aforementioned books (dead link; try web.archive.org). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Certainly a large part of the Final Fantasy series, but I don't think it really has any out-of-universe relevance though. Even if it did, it'd almost be a WP:TNT type situation - I mean its really pretty far away from what we want Wikipedia articles to look like. (For example, What's up up with all of the block quotes/"c quotes" that are fictional direct quotes from what the character says in-game. It looks like something out of a game manual or something.) (EDIT: I'm fine with a redirect, it is a plausible search term. A merge wouldn't be necessary though, as most of the content isn't usable, and Final Fantasy 7 is in great shape, so it probably has all it needs about Shinra there already.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Final Fantasy VII. Exactly—no out-of-universe significance in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. The main article is sourced and handles the relevant material just fine. Please ping me you find more (non-English and offline) sources. – czar 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move as suggested - My searches found nothing to suggest this has outstanding notability for a separate article. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - way, way too much in-universe detail; none of the information is usable in the article on the game as is. --Pres N 18:44, 12 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Phonon Communications[edit]

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

They are a company with only a small amount of coverage, I couldn't find any more. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested Deletion[edit]

As per Wikipedia As per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies):

An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability

This clearly mentions a negative case, that: "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject ....is not sufficient to establish notability." This aspect is agreed.

However, the coverage^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4] qualifies as substantial and direct coverage by independent secondary sources. This reference sources are:

Periodicals and links of repute and significant coverage/distribution in India.
The coverage is not a part of any media syndications or paid news, and is independent coverage.
The article refers to and associates items only referred to by in the coverage from secondary sources; and there is no marketing/sales content in this.

Therefore the article should not be deleted and be removed from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phonon Communications. Macky0209 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Click-to-Call". http://www.economictimes.com. 20 October 2008. Retrieved 4 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ "Out of The Box Ideas in Fray". http://www.livemint.com. 3 November 2008. Retrieved 4 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
^ ToI Bureau (1 December 2006). "Passengers get info on flight glitches via Phonon.in tech". Retrieved 4 June 2015.
^ Team YS (2 August 2010). "Ujwal Makhija, Founder, Phonon.in". Your Story. Retrieved 4 June 2015.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am very reluctant to vote keep on a company of only 30 employees, but there is in-fact a sufficient amount of source material to support at least a good quality stub. CorporateM (Talk) 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CorporateM. VMS Mosaic (talk) 01:03, 17 June 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. Davewild (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JLCX[edit]

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

Previous prod was removed without comment. Concern was that their is no evidence of notability and the article is unsourced. I concur - not notable Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability, let alone very poorly written and without any references.--Rpclod (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Incomprehensible in its own right, but it appears to say that "JLCX" isn't an independent, functioning unit anymore anyway. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. JLCX is a reporting mark for J&L Consulting, a leasing company. Those can be notable, but I can't find much discussion of the company. Mackensen (talk) 22:33, 12 June 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. Very close between keep and merge but the keep arguments are slightly stronger. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IKEA pencil[edit]

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

Not notable or important Wrightie99 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC) This is just not a notable subject, there is a citation missing but I'm sorry but a Wikipedia does not need a fraudulent article on an obscene pencil made by a Swedish furniture store! Wrightie99 (talk) 11:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is happening with the stuff above, but I strongly disagree with IKEA pencils being non-notable; they are a common item, very iconic, and the article has enough information to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. WP:PRODUCT states that a product (which this is, kinda) should be listed separately if the maker's article is 'unwieldy' – IKEA is quite long and I would classify it as 'unwieldy'.

It suits WP:GNG because:

"Significant coverage" –

News articles, primary sources, etc can all be found on this topic

"Reliable" –

Many of the sources are reliable

"Sources" –

"Independent of the subject" –

Primary and secondary sources are all available

"Presumed" –

The history and breadth of resources warrant this article being kept.

I have also found a source for the 'citation needed' which I will add to the article now. – Hshook (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to delete. Two articles referenced are essentially duplicate (i.e., that an agency was surprisingly found to use the product). The third talks more about a work of art using the subject. This does not seem to be sufficient coverage to show notability for a pencil provided at a store.--Rpclod (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to IKEA (but preferably not): this article is really just a stand-alone trivia section, which are to be avoided. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - strangely, these pencils do have quite a cult following and coverage as shown here [34], [35], [36]; however I don't believe this accounts for the required significant coverage. Most of the stories are related to the surgeons liking them as reported by the British Medical Journal (which was then re-reported). So we really have a handful of stories and it's insufficient for an encyclopedic entry, but can be a paragraph in the IKEA article. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not quite sure why the nom has such apparently personal feelings about the article ~ "fraudulent", "obscene"? c'mon now ~ but i believe that the thing has sufficient coverage in reliable and significant sources (Time, Toronto Star to show that, however odd it may be, it has gained enough attention that coverage is warranted. I cannot see a lot of development potential (though it'd be cool to be proven wrong), but that's no reason to delete it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 15:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The writing isn't all that elegant, but form follows function, I suppose. It would be good if the article weren't written so defensively -- with everything there cobbled from sources to defend against AfD and instead actually synthesized more naturally -- but that's kvetching about style. The pet rock gets an article, and the IKEA meatball probably does, too. Importance isn't part of notability, I'm afraid. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect per below: It makes more sense and is more useful to merge/redirect anyway, since it's doubtful that a person will always hit the magic formula of "IKEA pencil" if that's what she is searching for. The information will serve readers better at the parent article. Hithladaeus (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG: [37], [38], [39]. An option is to merge to IKEA. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - After reconsidering, I think the best course of action would be to merge the article with Ikea. Maybe create section for this notable, important pencil in the Ikea article. For clarity's sake, this !vote was added by the nominator here. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 12:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Weak keep For me, the notability of this article lives and dies on its third paragraph: i.e., demonstrating that there is a sufficiently notable level of meme or subculture surrounding the stealing and re-purposing of the pencils; the rest (design, number stolen, etc.) is just padding, and wouldn't be enough for an article without the third paragraph. Personally, I think the two examples I see in the article to date – someone building a chair, and surgeons using them – are weak. But a Google-search shows that there is some low-level Facebook and Buzzfeed type of love for IKEA pencil larceny and repurposing out there, so I'd say it probably does enough to meet WP:GNG. Aspirex (talk) 12:05, 14 June 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eternity: Our Next Billion Years[edit]

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

Non-notable book, has had notability tag for almost a year. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews. Just added one form the Globe and Mail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Hanlon.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was able to find some more reviews and I also found an interview about the book with SF Signal. This is just enough to push it above the bar for notability. I'd flesh it out more but I'm not familiar with the book, so I figure I'll leave it for someone who could put in more than just superficial information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Tokyogirl79says, it now passes WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG thanks to addition of references by Tokyogirl79 and E.M.Gregory Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 11 June 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Lake Station, Indiana[edit]

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

simply not a notable subject. with references, it could be merged back to the settlement article, which is already pretty dismal itself. John from Idegon (talk) 11:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot believe this has been around that long —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content should have been added to the Lake Station, Indiana article because a size or content split is not justified. See Wikipedia:Splitting. Waters.Justin (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not warrant separate article from Lake Station, Indiana Quirinus X (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether a town or city is eligible for a standalone list of its mayors is not, strictly speaking, a question of the place's size — rather, it's a question of whether the city's article is long enough to warrant chunking some of its content out into subarticles or not. But that's not the case here. And further, the city is not large enough (pop. 12K) to confer an automatic WP:NPOL pass on its mayors — only one person named in this list actually has an article, and even that one article is a slice of deletion bait which contains nothing about him beyond a one-sentence assertion of his existence. So even if this were left in place as a standalone article, it would very shortly become a dead end page with no outbound links. The mayors can be listed in the city's main article if proper sourcing is added to verify the accuracy of the list, but we don't need this. Bearcat (talk) 18:49, 12 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Vincent[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable chef. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and copy edit to address promotional tone. The subject meets WP:BASIC – ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Foreign & Domestic's Indie Chefs Table: Chicago's Jason Vincent". Austin Chronicle.
^ "Jason Vincent of Nightwood one of Food & Wine's Best New Chefs". Chicago Tribune.
^ "Guest Chefs: "King of Porc" Chef Jason Vincent Teams Up With Forest Grill For One Night Only". Yahoo News. 28 August 2014.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the live references are essentially due to one award in 2013, except one discussing his replacement. Notably the two Food & Wine links are dead. Even the awarding entity does not find him notable?--Rpclod (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until better coverage is achieved, my searches News, Books and browser found some results but nothing outstanding. SwisterTwister talk 04:23, 12 June 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 move to draft namespace. The nominator has essentially withdrawn, agreeing to a move of the article to Draft namespace. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy Cromer-Campbell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now and draft to userspace - My searches here, here, here and here found results but not enough for solid notability. This is a nice, neat and sourced article but I think we can wait until she's achieved some more coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whose userspace would we move it to? The creator is indeffed blocked as part of a PR sockfarm. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of that; in that case any willing or future user. I simply thought of drafting since the article may have future potential. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess moving it to Draft:Tammy Cromer-Campbell would be okay, that gives it 6 months for someone to decide to work on it before it becomes a stale draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:13, 12 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kevin Ellis[edit]

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

Non-notable person, fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunate murder victim, but nothing notable indicated.--Rpclod (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately delete as there isn't an outstanding amount of coverage with my searches finding here and here (nothing else with other searches). In any case, this would be better mentioned somewhere else such as a list but I'm not seeing a good target. SwisterTwister talk 04:31, 12 June 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Monica Police Department[edit]

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

Non-notable police department, created by a PR sock. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Police department with about 450 employees. Large enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

number of employees is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ fails WP:GNG. Gnews shows almost all coverage is routine and from local press. LibStar (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per discussion below, results from highbeam, gnews are all routine and run of the mill of what any city police department does. James500 was even not able to specify 3 sources that would establish notability instead arguing the totality of highbeam sources makes it notable . In fact highbeam is full of police department press releases which would not satisfy WP:ORGIND as a reliable third party source. LibStar (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd nomination. Satisfies GNG easily due to significant coverage etc etc etc in sources in GBooks (of which there are more than one hundred for "Santa Monica Police Department" alone), GNews (of which there are more than 420 for the same expression) and elsewhere. The coverage is not almost all routine and local, even in GNews. Indeed, coverage in books is never local or routine because they aren't published locally or periodically. And you can't demonstrate that coverage is routine by cherry picking. The content of GNews says nothing about other sources outside of GNews. And if GNews is all you have looked at, you haven't complied with BEFORE. The department is also notable on account of its size, age and importance. As an obvious redirect to the article on Santa Monica, this page is not even theoretically eligible for deletion (WP:R). This nomination is really a merger proposal masquerading as an AfD. AfD isn't for mergers, and this type of nomination should cease. James500 (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gbooks contains very little in-depth coverage where the police department is the main subject of the book. Please also provide evidence of actual sources outside of gnews you have found. LibStar (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The level of coverage in GBooks conforms to my ideas of significant coverage. Sources that I found come up immediately when you follow the set of links at the top of this AfD after the words "Find sources". I'm sure you don't need a detailed webliography to find the 452 sources in Highbeam, or the sources in GScholar. James500 (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUSTBESOURCES. 452 sources may not be in depth, it's the quality not quantity of sources. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is only an essay. It is also referring to the existence of sources, not their quality. Since you do not dispute that the 452 sources in Highbeam exist, it is not relevant. I can't see anything wrong with the quality of all of the sources taken together as a whole. If you think I am mistaken, you should explain what is wrong with each of those four hundred sources, and each of all the other reliable sources, going through all of them one at a time. Since there are more than a thousand, that should take you a very long time. Notability doesn't need to come from a small number of very large sources. It can also come from a larger number of smaller sources. In my opinion, the sum total of the coverage in all the sources combined together as one is significant. That being the case, I don't need to specify a handful of the most detailed sources, as I am not relying on them alone anyway, and it would be misleading. James500 (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in the time spent arguing here you could list some sources, I will happily change my vote to keep if you list 10 indepth non routine sources. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why ten? GNG doesn't appear to me to require more than one "in depth" source at most. And how much depth do you want exactly? James500 (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

actually list in depth sources please LibStar (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to be individually "in depth". Invalid request. James500 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS regarding large hit counts from searches. Have you actually checked all 452 sources? LibStar (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is another essay. It is not applicable since I invoked the coverage in the sources, not their number. That essay admits that GBooks, GScholar and GNews are special cases. Highbeam isn't Google. I have examined the content of enough of the sources to convince me that the sum total of the content was already significant up to that point, according to my views on the correct interpretation of GNG. I examined the content of many pages of the results. I didn't count the exact number. It isn't necessary. James500 (talk) 15:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time please provide evidence of sources to establish notability, stop playing games and provide the evidence. LibStar (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For third time, I will not post hundred of links to demonstrate the sum total level of coverage that I am invoking. It is all in links at the top of the page. Anyone can look at it. Stop pretending to not understand. Stop asking me to do something that is obviously a time wasting tactic. James500 (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC

I never asked for 100s of links, the fact you can't even produce 3, says it all. I'm changing my vote to strong delete on the basis of your inability to list sources. LibStar (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is forbidden by WP:NRVE, which says that notability is determined by the existence of sources, not by their citation or non-citation by me. You know perfectly well that I have not at this point asserted that the notability of this topic could be established by three or ten of the much larger number of reliable sources alone, without looking at others, so I would likely be adding a very large number of links if I tried to comply with your request. James500 (talk) 16:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first few pages of highbeam are all WP:ROUTINE coverage eg press release on "SANTA MONICA POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDUCT DRIVER LICENSE/ DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE CHECKPOINT", "SANTA MONICA, Calif., Sept. 7 -- The Santa Monica Police Department issued the following press release: The Santa Monica Police Department will be conducting a DUI/Driver's License Checkpoint on the evening of Friday, September 14, 2012" LibStar (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is part of Wikipedia:Notability (events) which only applies to the notability of events. Whatever the department is, it is not an event. James500 (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant WP:ORGDEPTH which excludes trivial and routine coverage for organizations. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND specifically excludes press releases, so there's most of your beloved 452 high beam sources invalid. LibStar (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in fact every high beam source I've checked so far is a police department press release thus not third party coverage and would not qualify to establish notability.

Like The Santa Monica Police Department issued the following news release: On Sunday, July 8, 2007, at 11:00 P.M., undercover officers, with the assistance of uniformed patrol officers, from the Santa Monica Police Department were monitoring the parking structures located in the Downtown area LibStar (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Santa Monica Police" -release and "Santa Monica Police Department" -release. James500 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

looking at the first page of results it's all run of the mill stuff of what a police department does and reported in media, arrest someone, announce they are looking for someone. and the 452 highbeam results is reduced significantly LibStar (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To 617 and 194 respectively. James500 (talk) 17:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having given the matter further consideration, I cannot regard coverage of investigations etc of specific crimes as "routine" because that implies regularity, whereas criminal investigations and prosecutions are inherently irregular because crimes are not committed according to a pre-determined regular schedule, but instead occur at intervals that are presumably random. James500 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then every fire station, ambulance station and police station will get automatic notability as nothing happens on a pre-determined regular schedule. You're clutching at straws here, none of the coverage I've seen suggests this is a notable police department, considering WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGIND, it's amusing how you can't actually cite specific examples of sources. LibStar (talk)

the reporting of crimes which you argue as non routine fails WP:AUD as there is no national significance of arresting for drugs even murder in the USA. LibStar (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Many things happen on a pre-determined regular schedule. Christmas would be one example. It happens every year on the same day (25th December). I don't recall saying that I can't cite examples, as opposed to saying that I won't. (2) AUD is a complete mess, has been under discussion for some time, doesn't appear to me to reflect consensus and is certain be deleted sooner or later. It is also concerned with whether the source is local, not with the significance of the arrest, crime or etc reported. I doubt a source on the internet could be called "local", it being available to read anywhere in the world where there are landlines or mobile phone coverage. There are other possible objections to the application of AUD, for which see the discussion which took place on its talk page. And judging from the contents of English newspapers, some American murders, and their investigations, seem to be of international significance. James500 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that is a silly argument, just because something can be read on the internet does not count as international coverage. International coverage means the story, entity was taken up by foreign news sources or one of the biggest like CNN or BBC. My daughter's school newsletter is published on the internet, is that now international? The Santa Monica police coverage is primarily local, you're really clutching at straws trying to establish notability for this. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "clutching at straws". The argument isn't silly at all. AUD doesn't bother to define "local" and the consensus is that it is not clear what that means in ordinary language, much less what it should mean in that guideline. A school newsletter could be rejected as unreliable (for matters not related to the school) because teachers are not professional journalists, and as non-independent (for matters that would be allowed under ABOUTSELF). We don't need AUD for that. So that is not a valid analogy. James500 (talk) 18:27, 9 June 2015 (UTC) And since AUD only requires at most some coverage (it need not be significant) in one source that is non-local, it is not enough to argue that the coverage is primarily local, as it must all be local for that guideline to be even potentially engaged. James500 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop the pointless discussion. You've had your say. You don't think it's notable because you claim coverage is only routine. Others claim it's notable because of its size and obvious significance. Leave it up to others to decide now. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I love how you're taking sides, but I'll ask you if you consider press releases a reliable source for establishing notability? LibStar (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not taking sides on this daft argument. I've already had my say above. But this is just labouring it to the point of ridiculousness. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge/delete - the only useful thing is the sentence stating who is the current police chief and when she was elected. The fact that Lindsay Lohan had a mugshot taken there is highly unnotable. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You clearly don't realise that stubs are perfectly acceptable articles and the fact that there isn't a lot in the article now doesn't mean there couldn't be in the future! There's plenty that can be written on police forces of this size. That's the thing about Wikipedia - it's an ongoing project. We're here to discuss whether the subject is notable, not what the current state of the article is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know what we're here to discus; I'm saying this topic is NOT notable at this time per WP:GNG. The subject of this article fails WP:ORGDEPTH. If the Santa Monica Police Department ever becomes notable enough "in the future" then you can recreate the article. I was simply stating that's the only thing worthy of even being "merged" at this time, and even that item is fairly trivial. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) Of the existing content of the article, the list of former police chiefs and their dates of tenure is useful for the study of local history. The picture of the police station and vehicle is useful for illustrative purposes. The explanation of the abbreviation is useful for understanding jargon that might otherwise be incomprehensible. The location is useful for knowing where it is. The argument originally advanced above also ignores WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE and so forth. (2) For the absolute avoidance of doubt, even though the introduction to N says, and has always said, that a topic that satisfies GNG does not need to satisfy ORG (or any other SNG) as well, I am satisfied this topic does indeed satisfy ORG. James500 (talk) 03:20, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - None of those things are relevant for encyclopedic interest. Wikipedia is not Google. The photo is already on Commons and not proposed for deletion, so it can still be used in case everyone forgets what a 21st-century police car and building of no architectural interest look like. Hopefully, this photo will be preserved to help future archeologists desperate to understand our civilization. —Мандичка^YO 😜 05:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - All of those things are of encyclopedic interest. Wikipedia is not a single volume paper encyclopedia containing only pitifully and unnecessarily brief articles on only the most obvious and pedestrian topics (NOTPAPER), any more than it is Google. James500 (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I spent time digging up in-depth sources that quite clearly go beyond routine coverage and local audiences; hopefully these will allay the concerns of those advocating for deletion above. The Santa Monica Police Department has been pioneering a program to try to reduce homelessness, and this has received quite a bit of coverage. The longest report is one by the Urban Institute [40], pages 79-82 focus specifically on the role the SMPD plays in the Homeless Liason program. Also an article by the Los Angeles Times on the same subject [41], and a brief mention in a book [42]. Based upon this coverage, I conclude this article meets WP:CORP and WP:GNG. And yes, I will add these sources to the article as soon as I have a little more time. Altamel (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the homeless program is notable enough for the police department to have its own entry. It's a city program, run by police and service providers, that involves police to not ignore homeless people but ask if they would like to not be homeless. I don't see why that is notable in the least (or why they need a program to tell them to help people in distress), but the coverage is not significant. The LA Times article is about homelessness in Santa Monica and what the city is doing about it; it does not give much attention to the police department or police. The 160+page report is also about homelessness in general and only 3 pages concern the police. Homelessness in Santa Monica IS notable because of its famous history of claiming to welcome homeless while treating them like crap (eg $5,000 bail for stealing cup of coffee), but this should go in Santa Monica, California. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in addition to above, the sources do not provide evidence of "strong keep". this one is a paragraph reference to the Police dept in a book of several hundred pages. LibStar (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any decent sized paragraph absolutely is significant coverage. That passage alone , by itself, satisfies GNG as interpreted by WP:100W (which is intended as a maximum) before we even look at the hundreds of other sources. James500 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC) And the overall length of the book or report is irrelevant. A detailed paragraph in a 7 page essay is exactly the same value for notability purposes as the same paragraph in a 700 page book or a 7,000 or 70,000 page encyclopedia. James500 (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather wary of relying upon a relatively new essay to interpret significant coverage. Still, WP:SIGCOV does note that the topic covered does not need to be the main subject of the source material; the threshold is "directly and in detail." Three pages is long enough for a stand-alone news article, so I don't see why it is not significant coverage. Altamel (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how ironic, James500 like to critique me for pointing out essays ("that is only an essay") when he does so himself. even worse it's an essay he wrote himself. LibStar (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've participated in many AfDs , probably 100s, most articles that have been kept are when keep !voters demonstrate specific examples of sources to establish notability. James500 has yet to do this. this is the easiest way to establish notability rather than longwinded policy arguments, at least Altamel has made a genuine effort to list and explain sources rather than James500 constant refusal. It gives the impression (especially as many days have passed and time wasted arguing rather than specifying sources) that James knows notability is lacking as the sources are weak. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nonsense. As GNG is expressed in language that is inherently vague, ambiguous and subjective, no one can profess to know what it means. The most that anyone can do is express an opinion, which will involve making a personal decision. The words "detail" and "trivial", and so forth, that appear there do not have an absolute meaning in the English language. It certainly doesn't automatically mean what you would personally like it to mean. If you don't understand why that is, try searching for "proper meaning fallacy" with Google. There is no requirement at AfD to cite or explain any particular individual source, and, unless the source is offline, or unreasonably difficult to find with Google (which is not the case here), there is no reason to do so. I have participated in hundreds of AfDs myself, and looked at many more, and I have seen a very large number of AfDs being closed as keep were no sources have been individually named or explained by anyone. However in this case I have identified and explained a particular source. I pointed out above that the book on community policing in GBooks that you linked to above contains a paragraph about the SMPD, that deals directly with the SMPD and exceeds one hundred words in length. And I then expressed my opinion that the correct interpretation of GNG is that one hundred words is ipso facto significant coverage. (There is certainly nothing in the notability guidelines that contradicts that view). Therefore notability. Since I consider the case for notability to be conclusively proved by that one source alone, there is no need for me to individually specify others amongst the hundreds of sources that mention the SMPD. My arguments are no more long winded than yours. I cited the essay as a shorthand for a particular interpretation of a guideline ("as interpreted by"), not as if it was a policy or guideline. Strictly speaking, I cited GNG ("satisfies GNG"), which is definitely not an essay. I don't think it matters who wrote the essay. I have also written a lot of policies and guidelines. By your logic, I wouldn't be able to cite those either, which can't be right. In my view, the arguments made here are not a waste of time. In my view, the entire AfD is a waste of time. If the article hadn't been nominated, we wouldn't be arguing. James500 (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the above just demonstrates all the time spent on excessive long winded arguments with no genuine attempt to give examples of significant coverage. I'm sure the closing admin will take this into account including using an essay you invented yourself to back your argument. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) That is an inherently valid argument. Notability depends only on the existence of sources. It does not depend on their immediate citation by me or anyone else. It does not depend on anything in Wikipedia's content. There is nothing to take into account. That is provided by the guideline. (2) And since Altamel has individually named plenty of individual sources, the argument is also based on an untrue factual premise. There cannot be "no genuine attempt to give examples of significant coverage" if Altamel has, (and by your own admission above on this page he indeed has) done exactly that. And asking me to repeat his citations for the sake of doing so would be completely bizarre. It would be so absurd as to violate WP:IAR, which is policy. (3) "using an essay you've invented yourself" is a non argument, for the reasons I've already explained. (4) In any event, at the moment, consensus is clearly in favour of keeping the article. James500 (talk) 04:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above response clearly demonstrates my point, no genuine attempt to specify sources but continual long winded responses avoiding any attempt to demonstrate actual sources. I can bet the next response will be the same. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is pure repetition that advances no new arguments or ideas that have not already been advanced, and comprehensively answered, above on this page. James500 (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you've hardly comprehensively answered the notability concerns I've raised but instead use long winded arguments including citing essays (and you criticised me for citing essays) that you've invented yourself. the closing admin will note your complete reluctance to specify sources but resort to deflection and avoidance on this key question. LibStar (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've expanded the article with sources including some not mentioned above. I invite any new !voters browsing this page to offer their perspectives. Altamel (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is some depth of coverage here. Also a fair bit of coverage of their initiative to assist the homeless here. Some depth here. I've only been looking for a few minutes. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

how is this coverage about the police department? it's about a corrupt police officer. LibStar (talk) 03:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

secondly, a masters thesis is not considered a reliable source, it's been discussed here and here. LibStar (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an infobox was added with additional sourced details. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Magnolia677. Article is improving and will improve further. It's a major metro police department, and clearly notable according to the references. Jus da fax 15:16, 17 June 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 by nominator(non-admin-closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Chocolate Soldiers[edit]

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

Non-notable short film, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Joseph2302 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect to Hollywood Party (1934 film) per this source, which says that the short was part of this film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book says something similar, at least in the brief snapshot I saw. ("Made for the 1934 MGM feature Hollywood Party") Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding where there is some discussion of the short, but it's all hidden away in books that don't allow for a very good look at the work in question. ([43], [44], [45], [46], [47]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, if there's enough consensus. I was originally going to say that this should redirect to the main article for the film until I chanced upon some scholarly sources that discussed this work in some depth, notably the Kaufman article in Film History. It's enough to where I'd say that this could probably merit its own article independent of the main film. We could probably merge the production section into the main article for the film, I suppose, and I don't oppose this, although I am worried that this could cause WP:UNDUE weight because of the length of this section. However I will say that the overall article for Hollywood Party needs quite a bit of work and that if there are sources out there like the Kaufman article, odds are that the undue length could be easily rectified. Apparently this was a bomb of epic proportions, so it'd be interesting to expand. I'll try to do this myself if I can. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way this goes, this does need to be moved to The Hot Chocolate Soldiers, since the full, formal title includes the word "The". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and move it to The Hot Choc-late Soldiers since the full title does contain "the" but it also hyphenates the title. I'm also uploading the title card, which could probably be used in the main article for the film if the consensus is to merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My basic reason for keeping this separate as opposed to just proposing a merge is that the Kaufman article pretty much focused on this short specifically. It did mention it in relation to the film, but the emphasis on the film was very minimal. I am going to try to flesh out the article for the overall film and merge some information into the main article, but this is going to have to wait a few weeks for classes to finish. I'm finding quite a bit of coverage for the film, so I expect that the overall information on the film production could be fairly lengthy- which would make it better for this short to have its own page. I think that notability is established for it independently of the film for the most part, but again- I will understand if the consensus is to merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage for this specific short is pretty well hidden, I have to say. I can see where the non-notable concerns come from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the short's inclusion became Micky's first actual appearance in a feature film.... a notable "first" indeed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film may be short, but it is notable by itself as shown by authoritative coverage and also its content.--Rpclod (talk) 14:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the outstanding fix: More wonderful work by Tokyogirl79. This now looks like a slam-dunk keep, although the critics are a little tangential as they sit currently. (Some of the histories will be great additions for people who work in those fields. My only owned reference book is History of Narrative Film, which ignores animation, and my library is very weak on A/V.) Lovely stuff. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing Nice work @Tokyogirl79: on improving the article, I genuinely looked for sources and couldn't find any. Withdrawing/snow keep. FWIW, I genuinely though this wasn't notable enough, and am glad it's been improved- it's been a positive outcome to the deletion discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 10 June 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 for both articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rumonade[edit]

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

Sometimes I wonder what the point of a PROD is. An entirely non-notable neologism, which the article's creator claims is the fruit of his fertile imagination.TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A11: Obviously made up by creator, and no claim of significance. Blackguard 16:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant Keep~~ Delete I did a Gnews search I found the term used in a Jamaican newspaper in 2013. I am not enamored of the idea that the encyclopedia is enriched by articles for every stupid beverage. To make things even wierder, I did a Gbooks search and found the term used, probably as pointed out below, due to an OCR error, in a Latin treatise from 1504, though I have my doubts that a rum and lemonade concoction is meant in the context. I think I need a Harvey Wallbanger or a Fuzzy navel. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete - hardly any search results at all. Google told me 98, and this one has only 65. That's nothing. I'm pretty sure that Latin book from 1504 does not say rumonade. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbonade[edit]

I am also nominating the following related page, created by same editor, for the same reason as above:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only find a passing reference to this drink in a Toronto Life article from 2010. It's non notable. And my head hurts. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 21:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both Rumonade and Bourbonade are being considered in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whiskonade, Ginonade, Vodonade, Grapponade,...the potential list is endless.TheLongTone (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references, nothing indicating why this is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced article(s) with no indication of notability. Wikipedia isn't a recipe book! Neiltonks (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: Neologisms like this are going to trip up web searches, because the formation is way too easy. X+ade -- "petrolade," "cyanidade," etc., and then the shorter the loading syllable, the more likely there will be a hit, but this does not guarantee a duplicate usage of the term. It indicates someone else tripping over that formation. (The 1504 Latin book is almost surely an OCR error for an ede ending.) So, given the fact that Wikipedia long ago had the debate on recipes and concluded that it was not the place for recipes of any sort, delete. Yes, there can be a very few exceptions (Margarita), but they are excessively rare. Hithladaeus (talk) 16:43, 10 June 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 significant coverage in reliable sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DbVisualizer[edit]

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

I placed a PROD on this article for having no third party sources - the prod was removed without any such sources being added, so here we are at AFD. I looked for sources myself, and I could only find the usual mix of howtos, press releases, and download sites that come up for nonnotable software. No independent reliable sources about the subject, so I submit that this article topic fails both the general notability guideline and the guidelines specific to software. MrOllie (talk) 10:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references listed, no reliable sources, nothing suggests any notability or that this is other than just another software tool.--Rpclod (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on the talk page: I am not the creator of the stub, nor did I delete the initial message re deletion, but I think "DbVisualizer" meets the notability criteria for remaining an entry in Wikipedia. I am also in the process of adding some text and external links to the entry.

The software has a global following in the database community, and is spread in at least 112 countries (source: DbVis Software). Coverage on the web is fragmented, but massive. You get 339 K hits on Google for "DbVisualizer" in many languages, including Russian, Swedish and number of more or less exotic ones, while of course the majority are in English. The notability is also persistent over time, with posts dating back to 2002.

Please note that while the company behind DbVisualizer is a commercial enterprise, the software is also available in a free version.ChristerW (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added a number of external links to various reviews by various self published bloggers. These don't help build a case for notability unless they are published by reliable sources. To quote WP:NSOFTWARE: ' the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable'. Your argument about google hits is commonly brought up and well addressed by this essay.- MrOllie (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be a compilation of press releases. I also assume that most of us would like to cite traditional, reviewed academic publications. But I think we need to accept that significant work of great value is done outside of academia, particularly in SW, and thus will see no or little coverage in academic channels that can be verified the oldfashioned way. This leads me to the part where Wikipedia suggests we use common sense in evaluating sources for notability. The irony is that Wikipedia itself is viewed as unreliable and unverifiable by many, including my daughters' school, which explicitly forbids the use of Wikipedia in their school work. I myself put greater faith in the power of many, and while there still is a lot of questionable entries on Wikipedia, as whole I think it is a good source of information on many topics.

The same logic applies to the Web. A single entry or review may not be enough to establish notability, but if a great number of the hits point in the same direction, common sense may tell us we have something. Of the 340k or so hits on Google, the majority is obviously of low value. But I followed your links and the suggestion to try more specialized searches. Google Scholar - 79 hits, Google books - 359 hits, and Google News - 73 hits, all for "DbVisualizer". ChristerW (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE- just because you can find some hits on Google doesn't make those sources relevant and worthwhile. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you state categorically that 79 academic references on Google Scholar are not relevant after reviewing the post for 7 minutes? Or the 359 books referenced? Where is common sense? ChristerW (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)— ChristerW (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Perhaps you can point out some specific ones that have some substantial detail on DbVisualizer, and not just a trivial mention? I picked a few to check from those search results at random, but The Religious Traditions of Japan 500-1600 didn't have much detail. - MrOllie (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is more to it than Japanese religion. I've found a few, and am quite willing to scour for more if we're having a real discussion. http://thesisdatabankvisualisatie.googlecode.com/svn-history/r68/trunk/CaribouVisualisation/src/site/resources/Project.pdf is a Masters thesis about visualizing databases with the help of JPA (Java Persistence API) which is spot on re what DbVisualizer is about. The thesis is in Dutch, but is actually possible to read if you know English, German, and some Nordic languages. Next one is https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ibanez_conrad_v_200908_ms.pdf, a Masters thesis about visualizing a genome database. In English, luckily. https://books.google.se/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lWO5VwKEftkC&oi=fnd&pg=PT9&dq=dbvisualizer&ots=ter1GkuOjC&sig=Txf0u08pqVnucAW0jfTo6U5FmWs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false leads to a formally edited and published book by database guru Ronald Rood, who writes favourably about DbVisualizer in a book that is mainly concerned about Oracle. https://books.google.se/books?id=lWO5VwKEftkC&lpg=PT9&ots=ter1GkuOjC&dq=dbvisualizer&lr&pg=PT353#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false is the most interestiong mention of a total of eleven in the book. Apologies for the bulky URLs.

Are these references helpful? If yes, I'll happily look for more.ChristerW (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the number of references is impressive, their quality is not. I would like to emphasize that a mix of references where some fail to WP:INHERITED (a thesis about JPA that uses DbV but could have used any similar software), some are not independant (press releases), some are not reliable (blogs) and some are passing mentions is no substitute for even a single source that matches all criteria all of GNG. Special pleading ("but it is software, so there are less sources or sources of lower quality") ought to be discussed at the guideline level (e.g. WP:PRODUCT or WP:SOFTWARE though the latter one is only an essay).

Wikipedia is, ironically, considered an unreliable source by its own standards. So what? It does not follow that verifiability should go down the drain. Tigraan (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I'm creator of the article discussed above. The reason of creating it was following: I have searched for alternatives for DbVisualizer since I work this program heavily every day, and I was researching if there are other tools with comparable features. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's list of SQL tools wasn't listing DbVisualizer. So I have added it as I know it's functionality and I'm sure, that the tool must be in comparison list as one of most powerful ones. I have no idea why it is still not mentioned. Unfortunately I'm not an expert in Wikipedia bureaucracy so all these rules with references, notability, etc are too hard to understand. I wasn't even able to upload a screenshot because of too much effort get through all the rules. I don't mind if the article will be removed due to rule violation. I'm not a developer of this product, just user. However I'm convinced, that the tool must be at least present in the comparison table.--ArtemGratchev (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArtemGratchev, your authorship is greatly appreciated. I hope you don't perceive this review to be slighting that work. Perhaps the best guidance is found by clicking on the following link: WP:NSOFTWARE. In particular, references to significant critical reviews from independent authoritative sources and discussions providing context for those references will provide the best basis for retaining the article. I hope this helps and, more importantly, I hope you remain a member of the Wikipedia community.--Rpclod (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard not to perceive this environment as harsh and slighting. I can read. I have some experience from various aspects of publishing, though a newbie at Wikipedia. It is easy to flaunt links to various rules. But we all know that this is not an exact science, at the end of the day it is about passing judgment. And I think there should be yet another Wikipedia rule (maybe there is one?) about consistent and equal treatment. If you look att the comparison list (linked to from the proposed article) you will find a long list of database tools that have their own articles in Wikipedia, and most if not all rely on self-published and promotional material. In fairness, quite a few are marked for various deficiencies, but none is slated for deletion. Is it too much to ask that the same standards are applied in a given area, SW or not? As a reader, I expect Wikipedia to be comprehensive in any field that is deemed fit to be covered. You should either let the DbVisualizer article stand, with homework to do, or start deleting the others.

As a side note, I think it matters tremendeously that Wikipedia is not a reliable source by its own standards. A worthy challenge would we to redefine proof of notability and criteria for reliability for the Web age, where a lot of significant sources couldn't be bothered with traditonal publishing bureaucracy. There is more in the balance than a few more entries for SW tools, imagine establishing a new standard so that educators stopped failing our kids if caught redhanded with using Wikipedia.

Oh, and here is another edited and formally published book reference for you to shoot down: https://books.google.se/books?id=L3qfayrqJ1oC&pg=PA630&dq=dbvisualizer&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAWoVChMIttvc1sWHxgIVClgsCh2ACQAs#v=onepage&q=dbvisualizer&f=false. Page 630. It is a tool, and it can most likely be substituted. It can still be notable, as the authors seem to think. ChristerW (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You should either let the DbVisualizer article stand, with homework to do, or start deleting the others." is a perfect exemple of WP:OTHERSTUFF. The fact that a growing share of the internet (important note: not all of it) is full of unverifiable claims does not mean WP:V ought to go. Teachers punishing WP use has more to do with professoral bigotry and the inability of some student to use it correctly. Anyways, if you disagree with the guidelines, the correct process is to go discuss them on their pages, not to start with a special exception on one article. Tigraan (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tigraan, I'm not asking for a special exception, quite the contrary. Please treat all database tools equally, that is all. And no, I don't think I disagree with any of the WP rules I have read. But I do disagree with some interpretations of them. I do notice that the otherstuff rule acknowledges that precedent is sometimes valid. In this case, we are looking at a pattern where some 30+ other tools are allowed to have articles. This is different to when you build your arguments on a single article that hasn't been written yet or some stray article that slipped through the net though it should have been stopped.

Now, I will make an honest effort over the weekend to try to address the concerns listed here. In the meantime, I would appreciate your view on what needs to be done to avoid deletion. Preferably with very specific concerns, not just links to rules that are easy to agree on but are open to interpretation. I do, in good faith, beleive that some of the external links meet the GNG standards, but I will try to improve.ChristerW (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gene93k, I am afraid that DbV simply does not pass GNG so there is nothing to be done. I expressed my main concern above: I found no source here or by searching that could count toward GNG because they all fail on separate points. If there is a source that does (1) talk about the subject at length (2) is independant from the subject and (3) is reliable, all that at the same time, please point to it. We do not need many sources, but we need high-quality ones.

As for OTHERSTUFF, let me cite the relevant excerpt. Of course interpretations can vary, and moreover, as an essay, it is itself a mere interpretation of the guidelines. However it does not follow that all interpretations are equally valuable, equally popular, or equally likely to form a consensus.

The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article (…). Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it. (…) Sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted (the most famous example being the Pokémon test); these may be effective arguments, but even here caution should be used.

"Other stuff exists" is only a short dismissal of an incorrect analogy reasoning; it does not mean any analogy reasoning is incorrect.

The problem here is that you are implicitly assuming that other articles are analog to the current one, when they are not: this one is currently at AfD while others never went to it. If a similar AfD discussion took place in the past and it was decided to keep the article, then it would be an argument; the burden to prove that the past decision was incorrect or inapplicable to the current case would be on delete !voters. (If it is indeed the case, please link.)

The "went to AFD" part is a significant difference. Otherwise, pushing things to the extreme, I could create an article on foo, and then run a bot to create similar articles bar1, bar2, etc. in a way that does not mean any speedy deletion criteria. Then at the AfD for "foo" I could say that bar1, bar2 etc. are similar and still here; by the time those get deleted, my bot will have bar100, bar101, etc. up and running for me to fall back on.

If you think that those other articles are even worse and shall be deleted, feel free to nominate them. I think you are most likely correct on that point. But you should not use it as a diversion from the current page. Tigraan (talk) 11:53, 15 June 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. no indication of significance DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Fayaz[edit]

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

Non notable person. Can not find reliable or independent source fort the subject. Also the article is an autobiography Arr4 (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Arr4 (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non-notable. It should have been tagged under CSD A7. sami ^talk 10:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Nothing in the article shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 10:40, 10 June 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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Dieci Comandamenti[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by }the creator with the following edit summary: "Internation critics and artists translated into other languages poems from this book and used poems to create lyrical songs. The book is adopted by a lot of national and international libraries as Cambr. University and quoted in indip. critical books". While I don't read Italian, the references seem to mention the book in passing, and I do not see any reviews. No reliable source has presented a review of it, nor does it seem to won any awards that would give it automatic notability. As I've suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gli anni di Cristo majority if not all of the works of Menotti Lerro do not appear notable and should be merged to his biographical article before they are deleted as stand-alone articles failing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can I add the delete vote for his "books"Devbasdev (talk) 09:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)?[reply]

Delete There are no third-party RS, and I can't find any for this book. It meets none of the criteria for books. It's already a stretch that the author has a WP page (which itself has limited RS). LaMona (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 10 June 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) 00:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence Squared[edit]

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

Supported almost exclusively by primary sources, fails WP:CORP Flat Out (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Of note is that several events the organization has organized have received significant coverage. Examples include: [48], [49], [50], [51], and more are available (e.g. Google News results). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete If 3rd party sources are paying attention to this group, then we keep it. If not, and that's what has happened so far, we don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a frivolous AfD submission. It's trivial --- the first response page of a Google News search --- to generate a long list of WP:RS references for this organization, which stages debates whose participants are themselves virtually all WP:NOT. The US version of Intelligence Squared is essentially an NPR version of CNN Crossfire. It's not an obscure organization by any stretch. This is not a good article --- it needs better sourcing and a lot of cleanup --- but its wholesale removal would be an embarrassment to the project. ~~former wp editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31DB:2010:490C:597F:1C80:44A3 (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of filtering Google News down to the (large) subset of irrefutable sources, I tried an alternate tack of just searching for "Intelligence Squared" and "major news source". I only had to do it once: "Intelligence Squared" + "NYTimes" produces: [52]. This is a story about Intelligence Squared, twenty paragraphs long, that ran in the print edition of the NYTimes. ~~Speedy keep~~, admins. ~~ former wp editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:31DB:2010:490C:597F:1C80:44A3 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one obvious. Le petit fromage (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per significant coverage. Nominator is reminded to read WP:BEFORE nominating for AfD. —Мандичка^YO 😜 11:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-For reasons listed above. This is a prominent debate staging organization with numerous highly publicized debates full of notable pundits from various fields. A quick google search turns up dozens of secondary sources. I think the nominator should attempt to fix the article by including those numerous secondary sources instead of nominating it for AfD.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 06:56, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate (company)[edit]

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

No indication of importance, seems more like an advert than anything else --☣Anar chyte☣ 09:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) --☣Anar chyte☣ 09:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --☣Anar chyte☣ 10:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - This is a huge company, revenue $500M in 2010, $600M in 2012. German PC Magazine ranked it third under "Retailer of the Year" behind Amazon and Dell [53] in 2013, and in 2014 it won "IT Distributor of the Year." [54]. Ref here from 2009 that they are largest electronics mailorder company in Germany [55]. The German article is not great with the sources unfortunately and it's going to be hard to find sources with a name like "Alternate"... The formal corporate names "Alternate GmbH" (98,000 Google results) or "Alternate Computerversand GmbH" (10,000 results) are used for a lot of PR/business listings. I'll try to find the right combination of search terms and the best sources for coverage. —Мандичка^YO 😜 10:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete There's no content here. If someone wants to improve the article, then that would quickly change to a keep, but as it is, we have nothing in this article worth the bytes it's written on. The larger this company actually is (presumably proportional to its notability), the less accurate and thus encyclopedic this tiny article would appear to be. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, FYI, the current state of the article is not considered during AfD. WP:CONTN, WP:NRV —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in using WP just to inaccurately describe a claimed $600M company as "a computer shop in Belgium", which is where the article currently stands. Either fix it or delete it as grossly misleading. It would be no loss to lose it, it would remove the inaccuracy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If only there were a place on Wikipedia where a group of people could come together and do something like, I don't know, see what they could find, content wise, to fix an article with such clear issues that its very existence is threatened. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything in searches more significant than mentions. The @de WP has an article, but it also lacks 3rd party references. (There is one there, but it doesn't mention the company itself.) LaMona (talk) 05:14, 14 June 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Senthilmani Mayooran[edit]

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

Failed to assert notability as per WP:ANYBIO - mentioned that the subject concerned won an award but failed to provide any reference nor any details suggesting that the award is notable. - Andrew Y _talk 10:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as unsourced BLP. Subject wrote one book, and tries to promote it. Kraxler (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article should have been WP:BLPPRODded, instead of going to AfD. Kraxler (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That has been done now.— Andrew Y _talk 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not yet qualify for BLP prod deletion at this time because only two days have passed since it was added. As such, relisting the discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be self-promotion without any suggestion or proof of notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.--Rpclod (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure why it wouldn't qualify for a speedy delete, as there aren't any real claims for notability made, but, since we're here, this is a clear delete for failing notability and (self)-promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spammy on top of all other issues mentioned here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 10 June 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. —SpacemanSpiff 07:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vivekananda Institute of Human Excellence, Hyderabad[edit]

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

A thorough search fails to disclose significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. There are plenty of passing mentions, but I have yet to come across one that has more than a sentence. A previous AfD was closed "no consensus," but that was prior to the creator and another of the "keep" voters being blocked for being sockpuppets (of each other). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The institute runs some personal development courses. Not notable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 09:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the independent sources minimally discuss some courses offered and another discusses the founder, but nothing really discusses the subject or indicates that it is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 11:00, 10 June 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. Sam Walton (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Anderson[edit]

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

Poorly-sourced biography of a producer of documentaries. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss her in any depth. Fails WP:BASIC. - Mr X 13:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced BLP. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a bad biography, no references. 333 -blue 09:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now and move to userspace - My searches found no solid and in-depth coverage about her specifically and there's no target for moving elsewhere. I think we can wait until she's achieved some more coverage. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 12 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L'excellence[edit]

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

Unsourced TV movie, fails WP:GNG. Page creator removed PROD by User:McGeddon. Dodi 8238 (talk) 15:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, no indication of notability. I found nothing helpful on my own searches. Huon (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unverified "miniseries" with one actor from Egypt (Maxell film studios?) -- no notability offered within the article, and no verification outside of it by this name (at least for me). Hithladaeus (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches clearly found no good coverage aside from some foreign news links here. Unless good coverage exists non-English or offline, there's not much. SwisterTwister talk 04:47, 12 June 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 nomination withdrawn. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Roscoe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer which makes no strong claim of notability that would satisfy WP:CREATIVE — in actual fact, the topic has previously used the WP:OTRS system to actively circumvent any attempt to actually acknowledge his strongest claim to notability (i.e. the fact that he was one of the most prominent gay writers publishing in Canada in the early 1990s — and yes, sources for that fact do exist and were cited.) Which thus leaves us with virtually nothing we can actually write about him besides "this person exists" — but merely existing is not what gets a writer into Wikipedia. If we can't actually touch the core reason why he would qualify for a Wikipedia article, but instead are left being able to say nothing about him besides acknowledging that he exists, then we just shouldn't have an article about him at all. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say he used OTRS, did he ask for his entry to be deleted, or specifically ask for removal of the fact of his sexuality, or something else? It's surely possible to mention that someone wrote on gay themes without specifically referring to their sexuality? Since he's published by Bold Stroke Books, slogan "Quality and diversity in LGBTQ literature"[56], I don't see how he can seriously argue against mention of homosexuality. Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact substance of the entire OTRS request, because OTRS doesn't publicize that information — I can only judge the situation based on what happened at the edit level. What got removed, with an OTRS ticket number in the edit summary, was the (properly sourced) acknowledgement of his outness about his sexuality. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stephen Henighan discusses his work. here:[57]. I take that as prima facie evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bearcat Chap has an inconveniently common name. However, the article merely needs someone to add the book reviews and discussion of his work by literary critics. Reviews and discussions are pretty easy to locate. I'm not saying that you are required to write and source a literary analysis of this writer, only that you might want to rethink the AFD and just leave the article tagged for sourcing until some fan or grad student comes along and writes a proper article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with E.M.Gregory, but I think there should be more sources on the article. Weegeerunner (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not that bad. 333 -blue 09:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete So far the National Post article is the only one that seems to support notability. His books have had zero reviews in Booklist. Only one was reviewed in Kirkus (and it was not a glowing review). His books are found on Worldcat with library holdings between 30-90 copies (that's not at all a high number). Unless E.M.G. can find more reviews, I just don't think he makes the grade. I'll check back. LaMona (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few sources to the page. User:Bearcat is awfully good at spotting articles that should be deleted, but he seems not to have run searches on older Canadian newspapers. This guy had his moment, and it was covered in the major Canadian papers back around 1990. A search on "God's Peculiar Care" on Proquest newspapers turned up 30 book reviews and profiles, from all the major Canadian newspapers. Of course, if you run a search on his name in books, you turn up a good many sources about his life and work in literary sources devoted to gay writing. I did not cite these. This article should NOT be deleted by any editor who has not run a Proquest or similar searches. It is a KEEP. If you are tempted to delete it, or even to close it as undecided, flag me and I'll spend a couple of hours sourcing the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I most certainly did run a database search, and my reasoned judgement was that absent any specific achievement that would actually satisfy WP:AUTHOR (e.g. he never won a notable literary award, his books are no longer widely held anywhere, and on and so forth), and stripped of the ability to say anything about the strongest reason why he should actually have a Wikipedia article, the sources didn't actually support any substantive claim of notability beyond "writer who exists". You're free to have a different opinion about how much substance the sources you added actually offer — I'm still not seeing anything in the article that would constitute an WP:AUTHOR pass, but you're free to vary your mileage — but kindly don't imply that I didn't even attempt to source the article up properly. There's just no meat left once we exclude the sources that are covering him in the context of the gay issue, which isn't the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bearcat, I apologize. I really thought you must have missed the stuff from the early years. I may be keying in different search parameters, and, therefore, seeing different sources. I am seeing rave reviews for his early novels and short story collections, profiles in major papers like the Globe and Mail, and at lease on major prize. You are, of course, correct that this sort of material is overwhelmed by the verboten material. And I have not addressed the fact that in the the Globe and Mail interview he seems to assert that he more or less made up much of the information he gave to interviewers when his first novel was being promoted (for example, the assertion that he supported himself in Mexico as a prostitute). However, I think that there is more than enough to establish notability as a hot young writer on the Canadian literary scene c. 1990.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to withdraw this. As I've already discussed with E.M.Gregory, I think I've figured out a way forward, by which we don't have to just avoid all the strongest sources anymore. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 15 June 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. Philg88 ^♦talk 10:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gurjar[edit]

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

gujjar is correct not gurjar PolyGamma9 (talk) 09:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. This is not really a deletion request but rather a rename request, which would fail even in that regard per WP:COMMONNAME. FWIW, the subject matter is clearly notable! - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 10 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7th And WestLake[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no independent reliable coverage BOVINEBOY2008 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete for currently failing WP:NF. While it appears to exist as a low-budget indie film, it lacks coverage in reliable sources. Allow a return if inclusion criteria are ever met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My first searches immediately found no good coverage and it seems the only sources are primary such as social media. With an online release in August, this is probably going to be a minor release. SwisterTwister talk 04:45, 12 June 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 merge to John Deere. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Green magazine[edit]

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

No reliable sources are given to indicate notability or significance per notability guidelines. An IP user has claimed "Glossy antique tractor mag with 30 year history and notability within the field . Also published several specialist handbooks by various authors" but no sources to support it have been given. 331dot (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment tractor + "green magazine" shows up quite well on a search of google books. Plus, looking at the magazine's website has persuaded me that I really ought to buy myself a small farm so that I can drive one of these babies, them get under the hood in the barn. Small magazine that has serious charm, and a clearly devoted readership.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to John Deere, which presently does not mention the publication. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, the article's content is verifiable to facilitate a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge. concur with User:Northamerica1000.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per user:Northamerica1000: I live in the land of Deere, where the green machines are more common than bicycles and cars ("Truck, man. You need a truck."), but I've never seen or heard of the magazine. At the same time, I know the devotion, veneration, and awe that the Real people ("What do you mean you don't have a pocket knife?") have for the brand. The magazine almost certainly fails notability, but it sounds like a good addition to the brand article. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:20, 10 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Johnson[edit]

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

Looks to be an autobio by a self-published author. There are a number of google hits, but most are social media. All sources are to subjects own websites. I'm pretty sure this is nn/COI, but have at it. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 00:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've heard of this guy and I've used his Dread Central reviews as RS on Wikipedia before, but he doesn't seem to have received coverage in RS. Dread Central has reviewed his book, but that'd be a WP:PRIMARY source on Wikipedia since there's an obvious COI there. Redirecting to Dread Central really isn't an option here since Wikipedia typically does not have a list of the staff members for any given company, partially because it can be seen as WP:UNDUE weight and mostly because that's not really encyclopedia style. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target and my searches found nothing good aside from one Books. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not appear to have notability as an author, except perhaps within a very personal fan club. The article has been written by an IP SPA and the refs are nearly all to his site. Books are held in about a dozen libraries each, as per WorldCat. I'm truly suspecting WP:PROMOTION, to be honest. LaMona (talk) 22:25, 12 June 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 consensus has shifted during this AfD. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Red-Headed League (Sherlock Holmes episode)[edit]

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

Unreferenced, not notable. This is the only episode of the series with its own article. Fuddle (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails GNG - very strange addition. Doesn't appear this episode was nominated for any kind of award etc. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to note that this is not the only one with its own article, we also have A Scandal in Bohemia (1984 TV series) and The Naval Treaty which are two more episodes of the Jeremy Brett TV adaptations. Mr Potto (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ah. So should the others be marked for deletion? Fuddle (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know. I've been looking around briefly and I've found more examples of British TV series like this, but I don't know about assessing notability of TV episodes. I do know that the Brett Holmes series is very highly regarded, but I really don't know about notability. I'll investigate a bit more and will comment further later. Mr Potto (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added a couple references to the article from the notable website TV.com which rates the episode 9.4/10, as well as doing a bit of work to improve it. The notion that Jeremy Brett's Holmes is not notable is incorrect. This is, as now referenced, a highly regarded episode of the classic 80's TV series, featuring the series' debut of the widely known Holmes archenemy Professor Moriarty. Jus da fax 07:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The original listing was based on the premise that the article was not notable, and that it was unreferenced. The former is demonstrably untrue, and the second is no longer true. In addition, per commenter Mr. Potto, the original contention by the nominator that there are no other Wikipedia articles on episodes of the "very highly regarded" Jeremy Brett series is also untrue. I contend therefore that the nominator's delete !vote should be discounted, along with that of the follow up, which fails to carry weight. To single out this article and leave the other existing Brett Holmes episodes would be a curious act, and seems to have confused the nominator, who has not followed up for six days, nor replied to rebut or acknowledge my comments in support. Articles regarding individual shows of notable television series are of course well established practice on Wikipedia, and Sherlock Holmes is also of course notable... Indeed, a household name for generations. I ask, therefore, given the time elapsed, the relisting, and the obvious discussional weight that is unanswered, that a Speedy Keep be applied, and that we move on to more obviously worthy candidates for deletion. Jus da fax 11:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to suggest keeping this now, after Jusdafax has added to the article. The Jeremy Brett Holmes series was considered of seminal importance in the UK, and many see it as the definitive interpretation of the character. Also, a number of other UK classic series from the past have many individual episode entries (like The Avengers (TV series)). I know this sounds like "I like it" and "Other stuff exists", which quite correctly are not sufficient, but I'm not familiar with the TMF guidelines for TV episodes so please just take these comments in the spirit they're intended. Mr Potto (talk) 12:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is covered in detail in numerous sources such as The Guinness Book of Classic British TV. It therefore passes the GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 16:57, 10 June 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. Davewild (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entropia del cuore[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by }the creator with the following edit summary: "Even if the book has been published in 2015 has already reached indipendent consens as article of newspapers and comments from important critics. Lyrical song from internation artist from this book quoted at national TG News...". While I don't read Italian, the references seem to mention the book in passing, and/or the reviews are from fringe/unreliable sources like blogs. No reliable source has presented a review of it, nor does it seem to won any awards that would give it automatic notability. As I've suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gli anni di Cristo majority if not all of the works of Menotti Lerro do not appear notable and should be merged to his biographical article before they are deleted as stand-alone articles failing notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's delete his "books" soonDevbasdev (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only have we deleted the other books by Lerro, we also deleted the article on Lerro for not passing WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. In addition, many of the creators and editors of these articles have been determined to be sock puppets. This is one of the last remaining articles (and I'm making a note to check for now-dead links in other articles.) LaMona (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a bunch of spammy links; left a few legitimate entries in lists. LaMona (talk) 22:57, 12 June 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 merge to Tom Koch. Randykitty (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

43-Man Squamish[edit]

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

Little out-of-universe notability, little sourcing, little content worth standing on its own. Tagged for notability since 2011 with no changes. Mostly just fanwank and trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Merge to List of Mad issues (1960–69). Sources cover the topic, but the depth of coverage may not be enough for a standalone article. Source examples in initial searches have provided: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would like to see it remain. I read about it 40 years ago, and now I have found the rules, again. I think it as notable as Calvinball. Pete unseth (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to article on its creator Tom Koch. I thought this would be more notable, but it's no quidditch, or even muggle quidditch. And while properly-sourced information on real-world teams would be good, we certainly don't need an article that unfunnily paraphrases the rules. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience ^t 01:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Colapeninsula: Note that the article states that this was invented by George Woodbridge and Tom Koch. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Koch wrote the rules and Woodbridge drew the pictures. So Koch has a better claim to be the creator (it is invariably the rules that are discussed, not the visual style or the illustrations). But if people would rather merge to MAD Magazine, that's fine too. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:11, 10 June 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. Overall consensus is to Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1927 Suvanto[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I only get 6 hits in Google scholar but 4 look worthwhile: a lightcurve study, two spectral studies, and a physical modeling study. So we may have enough sources and varied-enough sources to say something about this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can be made into more than just a bot copy of the JPL SBDB. -- Kheider (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 10 June 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. Overall consensus to keep even if it is weak, (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1486 Marilyn[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NASTRO or WP:GNG. I think it should be deleted; or (preferably) per NASTRO, redirected to List of minor planets: 1001-2000. Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: this one appears to have a few sources available on Google scholar. It may be barely notable. Praemonitus (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found only an old orbital study [64] and two period determinations [65] [66] but maybe it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect 3 references that do little but characterize orbital elements over the span of ~80 years... not really impressed by that. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 10 June 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) 06:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (virtual reality experience)[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator without any attempt to address the issue(s). Concern was: No reliable 3rd party sources. No indication of importance. Promotional. Article fails WP:GNG and is possibly a candidate for speedy deletion WP:A7 and WP:G11. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:34, 3 June 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) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't exist yet. This is TOOSOON and all that, because the article exists on the basis of a rumor of a project based on a hint. It can't be verified or be notable until it -- you know -- exists. Hithladaeus (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now (and maybe draft to userspace) - There's nothing solid yet and although my searches found several links here and here, there's not much yet. SwisterTwister talk 00:16, 12 June 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. Davewild (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Botana Curus[edit]

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

No reliable independent sources found making this a non-notable topic for a Wikipedia article. Philg88 ^♦talk 06:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately delete and I would've suggested moving elsewhere but there's no target. My searches found nothing good aside from some Books and same at Scholar. Nothing to suggest this is significantly known outside New York and notable for Wiki at this time.SwisterTwister talk 00:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent notability for this fictional example. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:45, 14 June 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. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tile Factory Outlet[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable company I dream of horses (T) @ 04:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A firm going about its business but no evidence of notability provided or found. (Searches turn up multiple false matches on similarly named businesses in the same field across the world.) AllyD (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without the vague, unsourced claim that it is "one of the biggest" this would no doubt be a speedy deletion candidate. This is a very recently established retail shed and I can't see any way it could meet WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The entire article is unsourced and therefore all of the page's content needs to be trimmed, regardless of notability. CorporateM (Talk) 19:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My searches found nothing to suggest this is notable. SwisterTwister talk 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:COMPANY says in part, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization.". Pretty clearly a delete unless good secondary sources can be produced. (As for any company that size). Adpete (talk) 04:42, 15 June 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. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karni Maa Group[edit]

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

Couldn't find any independent sources on Google. I dream of horses (T) @ 04:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The given sources are a routine business listing and an online post by "karnimaahosting" which is being used to reference claims in the article text. Searches are turning up no reliable 3rd party sources, just the occasional comment on web hosting comparison sites. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no neutral indication of notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: primary sources and business boosting -- delete for promotion. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like lots of the spam has now been removed, but no independent sources. Fail WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - My searches found nothing good for this specific group, mostly for a temple Karni Mata. SwisterTwister talk 00:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 12 June 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. There is a rough consensus here that the main notability guideline has been met. Davewild (talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.is[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominated for deletion for further discussion of the sources per a comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is: "Either relist or do not allow recreation". I will express my view to keep below. Cunard (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
Archive.is was deleted following discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archive.is in September 2013.
A list of Archive.is–related discussions can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 14#Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Two RfCs are Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC and Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3. Because the topic has been contentious, I brought this to DRV for community review of new sources that did not exist when the AfD took place.
Here are three reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Archive.is:
1. 山口真弘 (2014-06-01). "［ウェブサービスレビュー］ZIPや画像のダウンロードにも対応した魚拓サービス「Archive.today」" (in Japanese). CNET. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
2. Козлов, Алексей (2014-08-11). "Сайт дня: archive.today - альтернативный бэкап для "всего интернета"". Ferra.ru (in Russian). Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
  According to the Russian Wikipedia article ru:Ferra.ru, Ferra.ru is a magazine.
3. Koebler, Jason (2014-10-29). "Dear GamerGate: Please Stop Stealing Our Shit". Vice. Archived from the original on 2015-05-31. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
Archive.is also received some coverage in two journal articles:
1. Brunelle, Justin F.; Kelly, Mat; Weigle, Michele C.; Nelson, Michael L. (2015-01-25). "The impact of JavaScript on archivability". International Journal on Digital Libraries. 17 (2). Springer Science+Business Media: 95–117. doi:10.1007/s00799-015-0140-8. S2CID 254074456. Retrieved 2015-05-31.
2. Klein, Martin; Van de Sompel, Herbert; Sanderson, Robert; Shankar, Harihar; Balakireva, Lyudmila; Zhou, Ke; Tobin, Richard (2014-12-26). "Scholarly Context Not Found: One in Five Articles Suffers from Reference Rot". PLOS ONE. 9 (12). PLOS: e115253. Bibcode:2014PLoSO...9k5253K. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0115253.
The current name of the archiving service is Archive.is, not Archive.today. See the May 3, 2015, blog post http://blog.archive.is/post/118010496181/why-did-you-change-the-url-back-from-archive-today^WebCite.

Analysis of the sources

The Ferra.ru article provides detailed analysis about Archive.is (link to Google Translate where the translated text below is from; bolding added for emphasis and italics for my own comments):
In fact archive.today - is an alternative clone of the famous project Wayback Machine. True archive.today does not work automatically, and upon request, so that it would be correct to put on a par with Peeep.us or Perma.cc. [My comment: This compares archive.today to two other archiving services that also don't automatically archive URLs.] You never know where some of these sites suddenly block, so it makes sense to have them all bookmarked.
Site archive.today not really famous, but they are actively using. Search on base archive.today find thousands of pages, each of which was saved by someone. Not bad for a project with private financing.
It is worth noting that the services, making snapshots of pages differ in quality. The modern web standards are so complex that some browsers are not always the same understanding. Often a snapshot gets not all content pages. In this regard archive.today good enough. [My comment: This praises archive.today's quality in archiving pages.] It normally keeps even vebdvanolnyh page, the content of which is loaded scripts. Sami snapshot scripts are not included, so save forever page with the virus will fail.
...
From a technical standpoint archive.today - a useful and timely tool. [My comment: This article is clearly a review of archive.today.]
The Japanese article from CNET Japan (link to Google Translate) provides a very detailed overview of how the website works, sprinkling commentary throughout. It says that Archive.today has "unusual features" like downloading the archived page as an image or as a zip file (which, from my observation, other archiving sites like Wayback Machine and WebCite do not provide). The review notes that Archive.is's "reproducibility of the [archived] page" is "high". It further notes in a caption (from Google Translate): "Japanese also can be displayed without garbage properly, the font of the recall is also high."
This isn't merely a description. It further provides commentary about Archive.today's features and quality.
I am not using the journal articles to satisfy the "significant coverage" clause in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I am listing the articles here to show that Archive.is has been studied as an archiving service by academics. Just another data point for editors to consider.
Cunard (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging participants User:Poeticbent, User:Reyk, me_and (talk · contribs), and DGG (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cunard, this appears to be canvassing. Is there a neutral reason that only those who supported the recreation of the article were pinged? GregJackP Boomer! 06:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GregJackP: I was one of the users who was pinged, and I don't support recreation. I don't understand why Cunard didn't ping everyone, but I don't think they picked the users to ping based on who was supporting recreation. —me_and 13:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted all of the editors at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is because this discussion is an extension of the DRV. I have removed the canvassing note that was applied to Poeticbent (talk · contribs)'s comment. If it is to be restored, it must also be added to me_and's and DGG's comments.
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources Poeticbent talk 03:34, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Russian article is merely rewording of the now-deleted articled in Russian Wikipedia.
The article in Vice is rather critical and raises questions about copyright and legality of web archiving. Also, archive.is is involved in the GamerGate controversy that said its wiki and talk pages will be ready battlefield for the gamergaters. 90.178.108.190 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the Russian Wikipedia article contained a lot of commentary and analysis of Archive.is, I don't see how they are similar. I believe the Russian Wikipedia has the same requirement as the English Wikipedia's that articles be written neutrally which would prohibit analysis about Archive.is. And that Archive.is is involved in the Gamergate controversy that could cause it to be a battlefield isn't a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

English wiki or another wiki is not a reliable source. An online magazine having column "site of the day" filled with slighly reworded articles from the wiki (atlhough is legal under Creative Commons) is not a reliable source as well. Otherwise there will be reference loops.
Do not forget to ping User:Kww, User:Beetstra and User:Hasteur; they would be upset if the decision is made without them. 90.178.108.190 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quoting my argument from the deletion review: The CNET Japan and Ferra.ru articles only seem to be providing basic descriptions of the service, which I don't think meets the "significant coverage" requirement of GNG; the PLOS ONE article only has incidental coverage anyway, and I can't access the IJoDL article, but based on OP's summary I'm assuming that is also only incidental coverage. That only leaves the Vice article as clearly providing significant coverage. Thus it doesn't meet GNG and I don't see any other notability guideline that it does meet. —me_and 13:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my "Analysis of the sources" section above, I explained why I believed the CNET Japan and Ferra.ru sources went beyond "providing basic descriptions of the service" to actually reviewing and analyzing Archive.is. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I continue to consider the coverage sufficient to imply enough importance for notability. I additionally feel with have some degree of special responsibility to cover services of this nature DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, why do we have a "special responsibility to cover services of this nature" and where in policy is that kind of reasoning? Ghostwheel ʘ 04:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Majority of citations are to the site itself or to blogs. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, and review in six months. DGG is right, I think. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the website is notable. --Anar chyte 03:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this does seem to meet the minimum threshold of WP:GNG with the current sources it has. I think it might be a good idea to review again in 6 months per User:Guy above. Ghostwheel ʘ 04:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per DGG. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:29, 14 June 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 by nominator(non-admin closure). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sensis[edit]

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

Firstly, I just need to know if this is the correct procedure - can I create an article on a page marked as a disambiguation page, or do I have to request its deletion? If it's the latter, it is the reason for this request. If not, please disregard and I will go ahead and edit the page.

(Alternatively, would it perhaps be better to rename the page Sensis_(disambiguation)?)

I need to create an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensis solely about the Australian company Sensis.

Each of the other businesses listed on this disambiguation page have extra words in their name so it shouldn't be a huge issue to not have a disambiguation page, but I am still happy to add a hatnote linking to either the other two pages or a new disambiguation page at the top of the Sensis article I end up creating. Please advise if this is the correct procedure or not.

(For reference, Sensis is currently listed under a sub-section on the Telstra page - we are no longer fully owned by Telstra and as such would like a separate Wikipedia article.) I work for Sensis and have declared this in my profile. CS at Sensis (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As stated on Talk:Sensis, there is no evidence that you are the primary topic that people search for when looking for Sensis- all 3 are valid search criteria. Therefore under no circumstances should this legitimate disambiguation page be deleted and replaced by an article for your company, per WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as I already explained at Talk:Sensis, "Each of the other businesses listed on this disambiguation page have extra words in their name so it shouldn't be a huge issue to not have a disambiguation page." is not a valid reason, you have to show why it's the primary topic, and why people searching for Sensis will almost always be looking for your company and not the others. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawn Here the nominator has requested a withdrawal of this AfD- I will be closing it shortly. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:17, 10 June 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 merge to 41st Infantry Regiment (United States). Davewild (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Battalion 41st Infantry Regiment[edit]

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

Small military unit, unsourced. To my opinion a non-notable unit without a serious claim for fame The Banner talk 23:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - alternatively redirect to 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) Gbawden (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge and redirect to 41st Infantry Regiment (United States). Battalion-sized units are generally considered to be notable (see WP:MILUNIT). They are certainly not "small" - they are considered to be "major units". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- An essay? The Banner talk 14:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - An essay, yes, but one that's widely accepted by those who write military articles on Wikipedia as a scan of AfD discussions, where it is often quoted and usually taken as binding, will show you. And if you think a battalion is small or insignificant you clearly don't know a large amount about military affairs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent regiment. Intothat darkness 14:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no way that a US combat battalion that's seen combat in four or five wars isn't going to have received sufficient coverage to be independently notable. The nominator doesn't appear to have bothered to look for any coverage before starting this discussion, and calling a roughly 1000-strong unit "small" isn't well informed. Note that US infantry battalions have been independent of their nominal parent regiments since the 1960s, since which time this battalion has fought in three wars. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It is true that US infantry battalions are effectively independent, but if this is going to be kept as a standalone article (and I would actually prefer that it was) then 41st Infantry Regiment (United States) needs some work as info shouldn't be duplicated or divided between articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know military units are supposed to fight in wars. So actually fighting a war is not special for a military unit. The Banner talk 09:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - historic unit that started out as segregated (black) regiment; there is enough information to support its own article and not be merged with 41st Infantry Regiment. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we're going to start spinning articles down to the battalion and squadron level, pulling history from the parent regiment prior to the early 1960s comes close to SYNTH in my view. We're really looking at two different kinds of unit history based on the way the Army does lineage. Intothat darkness 20:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to parent regiment. Heyyouoverthere (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 41st Infantry Regiment per WP:MILUNIT, because as we go down to squadron and battalion groups, it would not be notable enough to have an article on it.--Tomandjerry211 (Let's have a chat) 15:48, 13 June 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 merge to Miss Gabon. Davewild (talk) 06:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Gabon 2013[edit]

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

Unsourced year version of a just two years old pageant. fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kraxler - Seems a waste to Delete when it can merged and thus can expand another article. –Davey2010^Talk 01:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Miss Gabon. The nomination statement contains the wrong statement "of a just two year old pageant" Miss Gabon has been elected since 2001, that are fifteen years, in my maths. The Banner apparently nominates things without checking the basic facts. There is quite some coverage of this pageant in Gabonese sources, but stand-alone articles for the year versions are probably not warranted. Kraxler (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have been nice when you had read the article. The first line states clearly: Miss Gabon 2013, the 2nd Miss Gabon pageant, (...). Beside that, the navigation template only mentions two editions. When there where more editions, this article shows no evidence of them. And it would be nice when you stop following me around. The Banner talk 19:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again, The Banner, both times. First: I'm not following you around, I'm scrutinizing AfD every day, and !vote at, or relist, all discussions where I feel I can contribute something helpful. Second: The introduction of this article says"...was be the 2nd Miss Gabon pageant by the Committee "Défis de femmes" (Women's Challenges)..." That means it was the 2nd pageant organized by a certain organization, that means the previous twelve editions were organized by somebody else, but not that the pageant is "two years old'". One click on Miss Gabon would give the correct info. AfD nominators are supposed to check WP:BEFORE they nominate something.

- Merge and redirect to Miss Gabon.— Elena Elk 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Kraxler —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:54, 10 June 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 Miss Gabon. No merge appears to be necessary as the only data listed for each year is the winner, which is already listed in the main article. —Darkwind (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Gabon 2014[edit]

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

Non-notable year version of a just ~~two~~three year old pageant. Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails ORG + GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Miss Gabon. The nomination statement contains the wrong statement "of a just two year old pageant" Miss Gabon has been elected since 2001, that are fifteen years, in my maths. The Banner apparently nominates things without checking the basic facts. There is quite some coverage of this pageant in Gabonese sources, but stand-alone articles for the year versions are probably not warranted. Kraxler (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The navigation template only mentions two editions. When there where more editions, this article shows no evidence of them. And it would be nice when you stop following me around. The Banner talk 19:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC) About the second, yes you are right with that. The first sentence mentioned that it is the third Miss Gabon 2014 was be the 3rd Miss Gabon pageant (...)[reply]

Wrong again, The Banner, both times. First: I'm not following you around, I'm scrutinizing AfD every day, and !vote at, or relist, all discussions where I feel I can contribute something helpful. Second: The introduction of this article says"...was be the 3rd Miss Gabon pageant by the Committee "Défis de femmes" (Women's Challenges)..." That means it was the 3rd pageant organized by a certain organization, that means the previous twelve editions were organized by somebody else, but not that the pageant is "three years old'". One click on Miss Gabon would give the correct info. AfD nominators are supposed to check WP:BEFORE they nominate something. Kraxler (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Merge and redirect to Miss Gabon.— Elena Elk 02:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:17, 10 June 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 no consensus. I have given little weight to the two opinions from single purpose accounts and while the keep supporters think it only just meets the notability guideline, I can't see a consensus for deletion here. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Niscience[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This organization is not “notable” by Wikipedia standards and therefore should not be represented in Wikipedia. The organization has not received significant coverage from “multiple reliable sources” independent of the organization. In the absence of such documentation the article does not accurately represent the purpose, activities, or history of the organization. Sattviclight (talk) 19:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Keep -- It seems to be a small syncretism between Christianity and New Age, though rather older than that. It is not a hoax as is clear from the LA Times article; and it has been going some 60 years. The question is how notable. My assessment on that is slight, rather than NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgillan (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2015 (UTC) — Rgillan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Why exactly? SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards keep - I acknowledge there could be more sources and multiple searches found nothing definite and significant (see this and this) but at least this article is neat and sourced so this makes think keep. SwisterTwister talk 06:19, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it's badly written, but cites 1 and 2 imply it's notable. Bearian (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly written. Citations are outdated and limited. Impossible to give fair and unbiased representation from available sources.GGATG (talk) 21:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Google search does not find any authoritative indication of notability. The only internet-accessible references are two non-authoritative primary sources and effectively an obituary.--Rpclod (talk) 03:37, 10 June 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 merge to Dose-volume histogram. Davewild (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Differential DVH[edit]

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

No indication of importance Rberchie (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless expanded upon. --☣Anar chyte☣ 09:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article as nominated had no context and no sources, but Google scholar search for "differential dvh" gets over 400 hits (that is, over 400 scholarly publications discuss this topic) and Google books gets nearly 200, so this seems to be a notable topic. I added a textbook source and cleared up the other maintenance tags. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notifying related projects Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dose-volume histogram. This is just one type and the other page is also very small. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article is linked to from Cumulative DVH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
merge Dose-volume histogram--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dose-volume histogram -BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:55, 10 June 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 all. Michig (talk) 06:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Speech by Marvin Amparo[edit]

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

Series of non-notable, self-published books by Marvin Amparo (author page deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Amparo) that do not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG guidelines. The only source that comes close to a reliable source is Farmingdale State College Student Spotlight - whether a college paper or a PR bit, it is not very independent, as Amparo is a student there. Congrats for graduating, Amparo '15, but until there are multiple independent reliable sources, these articles appear no more than publicity raising. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following Amparo book articles for the same reason:

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

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

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

Delete - the only reference is to an Amazon page? Nothing indicates that WP:NBOOK criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 03:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that the books are ultimately notable enough for an article. Neither the author nor his work seems to be notable enough for an article at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, part of a pattern of self-promotion from this editor. Blackguard 05:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Constellation of promotional articles. It's not as if it will really even work. Ok, page rank boosting, maybe, but.... Subjects fail notability, and articles violate the no-advertising mandate. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 12 June 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 speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury under criterion A7. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Datestamps on receipts in Canada[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a collection of facts. WP:NOT. Does not have enough coverage in reliable sources to verify and sustain an article. Does not pass WP:GNG. Jbh ^Talk 01:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a collection of trivial facts collected as a hobby. Ok, that is not actually a Wikipedia AfD essay but it should be for this article.--Rpclod (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate info, and perhaps a good choice for invoking WP:BEANS: even if not explicitly covered, this is what any good encyclopedia should not be. WP:ISNOTALISTOFDATESTAMPFORMATSONCANADIANRECEIPTS. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - WP:A7, no indication of why this collection of info about companies listed by datestamp has any notability whatsoever —Мандичка^YO 😜 08:25, 10 June 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 move to userspace (speedy close since there's a general agreement, including the author, that it's not ready to be live). Huon (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kristy Dempsey[edit]

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

I was the one who removed the CSD, but I think this is justified. There was a claim to notability, for winning the 2015 Golden Kite Award, however that appears to be the only reliable source about her. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOUR. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to not be the right person to create this wikipedia page. Im in 8th grade and I am Kristy Dempseys son. I have had almost no experience with wikipedia except for some editing and thats all. It seems that when I attempted to create a wikipedia page about my Mother. I may not have had enough experience with finding reliable sources and and information as to why this subject has one or more claims for notability. Feel free to close the article down. But please, I would still like to somehow maintain it privately so i may do more work and further carry on my Wikipedia expertise. Thank you Joseph2302. It has been a pleasure talking with you. This is a great moment to cherish. TheAuthorWikiGuy (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:22, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't you, the problem is I literally couldn't find any reliable sources about her, which is the only reason I put it up for deletion.

Also, I would support a Move to userspace. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom that the subject presently fails WP:NAUTHOR/WP:GNG. No reliable independent sources have been found. Support move to userspace as an alternative to deletion per the user's request here. --Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 01:57, 10 June 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. Davewild (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Jazz Recordings and Beyond[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (books) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Theshinzu (creator) with no rationale. While the article sports an impressive collection of refs, they seem to be misleading. For starters, it's a recent book (2015), and virtually all refs are older, so what is it that they are suppose to be proving? As far as I can tell, they are references to other works on Polish jazz and such, irrelevant here. Outside a quote from the book jacket, there is no links to any reliable reviews, nor can I find any. Not all books are notable, and this one doesn't seem to be notable (at least, not yet). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 06:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not establish notability.Pincrete (talk) 09:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 00:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator observes, most of the given references relate to the subject area in general (for example linking to books about Komeda and Stańko) rather than this 2015 book in particular. In years to come this may well become a standard reference book in its field, but that is speculation. As things stand, this fails the WP:NBOOK criteria. AllyD (talk) 06:47, 10 June 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. I 'm closing this as speedy delete, because there is no reasonable indication of significance, let alone of notability. The two arguments by fans are obviously irrelevant,, and if anything, confirm the lack of significance. DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jennalyn Ponraj[edit]

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

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

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

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

Artist fails WP:MUSICBIO/WP:GNG. The only references are primary sources which do not help establish notability. I can find no in-depth secondary coverage in reliable sources. Nick⁠—⁠^Contact/_Contribs 00:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 5 albert square (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources beyond the AllMusic discography. The page was thrice declined as a draft and then created in articlespace without addressing the notability issue. Huon (talk) 00:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing in the article suggests that WP:ENTERTAINER criteria is met. Perhaps too soon?--Rpclod (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to suggest that this 14-year-old has made it to Wikpedia's notability criteria at WP:MUSICBIO - yet. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article - I've seen Jennalyn perform on two different occasions and was blown away. I looked her up after I saw her open with her band at 253 United The Conference and found this page. She doesn't have too many things on the web about her but she does play a lot of gigs. I'm going to try and find some reviews about her music and I think you'll find a lot more references when her EP comes out. I joined Wikipedia because I don't think this should be deleted. Lizzyrose21 (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)— Lizzyrose21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP ARTICLE I RUN A FAN PAGE FOR JENNALYN PONRAJ!! (WE'VE BEEN AROUND SINCE MAY 5TH FOLLOW US ON TWITTER!!) I TWEETED ABOUT IT TODAY:)Heyyouuuu (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)— Heyyouuuu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete for now as my searches found no good third-party sources aside from music websites (ReverbNation, etc.) and primary sources (crowdfund, social media, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 12 June 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.

[1] "W.H. Ireland Group plc: LON:WHI quotes & news – Google Finance". google.co.uk.

[2] "What we do". London Stock Exchange Group.

[3] "AIM". londonstockexchange.com.

[ET_C2C-4] "Click-to-Call". http://www.economictimes.com. 20 October 2008. Retrieved 4 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[LM_Ideas-5] "Out of The Box Ideas in Fray". http://www.livemint.com. 3 November 2008. Retrieved 4 June 2015. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[ET_OBD-6] ToI Bureau (1 December 2006). "Passengers get info on flight glitches via Phonon.in tech". Retrieved 4 June 2015.

[YS1-7] Team YS (2 August 2010). "Ujwal Makhija, Founder, Phonon.in". Your Story. Retrieved 4 June 2015.

[8] "Foreign & Domestic's Indie Chefs Table: Chicago's Jason Vincent". Austin Chronicle.

[9] "Jason Vincent of Nightwood one of Food & Wine's Best New Chefs". Chicago Tribune.

[10] "Guest Chefs: "King of Porc" Chef Jason Vincent Teams Up With Forest Grill For One Night Only". Yahoo News. 28 August 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]