Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 November	28 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Environment Pop Music

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

Fails WP:Verifiability - No evidence that this is a recognised genre. There's only one reference, which doesn't verify anything, and no indication of notability. PROD was contested with no improvement or indication that sources exist. Peter James (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no clear evidence that this is a known, remarkable or new genre which is gaining notoriety. Also seems WP:HOAX. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as quite clearly a promotional page about Tristan Alan Coates' music. Non-notable neologism. Sionk (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Martin

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

Not notable character, fails WP:GNG. I see there was a AfD already which closed as "keep". But that AfD had pathetic votes, with people trying to inherit notable from the show and actor and people claiming that sources exist that just aren't here. We dont keep things just because sources MAY exist, we keep things because sources DO EXIST. Beerest 2 talk 22:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find it pretty hard to believe that sources exist. Most sites have really old archives, and the character isn't really THAT old. Notability can't just simply be taken from the show. A merge is also appropriate, but I don't really know to where. In any case, this character fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as last time – lack of notability. But WP:DRV probably would have been a better forum for this, as the previous AfD just closed. If people really want to keep this article, then I guess a merge would be acceptable as a fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good call with drv. I listed Bailey Pickett there. Beerest 2 talk 01:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article lacks notability, there is not enough source or substantial coverage. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Suite Life of Zack & Cody#Main, as this remains a likely search term. For now, I would guess this is still the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC versus the football player, but I wouldn't really object to a reversal of that. --BDD (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Burke (artist)

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

An autobiographical article by this youngish artist. I would expect anything in the form of reliable news coverage would be easily available, as he has been active during thefirst decade of the 2000s. He doesn't claim to have had any solo exhibitions, while the claim of "receiving attention" in the Financial Times sounds tenouos - it looks like the coverage was about the Saatchi gallery/website if anything. Being shortlisted for a minor art award doesn't equate to meeting WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, the subject must be sourced from independent, neutral revenues, which is not the case Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST and GNG. It's usually the case with artists they maintain a list of resources and press clippings on their website. As is the case here:In the press, Exhibitions, Notable collections. I can bring up full copies of the press articles if needed, or request at WP:REX. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones confer notability? The news articles are about the Saatchi online website (and Burke praising it). He has work in the collection of his MA college, which is hardly surprising. Sionk (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- User:Jamespburke seems to have stopped editing his own autobio article about three years. It looks to me as if (like many artists) he failed to make a living by his art and has found other work, perhaps websites. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Hard-moved to user's sandbox (the same one SandyGeorgia created) without redirect.. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic planning in the public sector

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

This is a class sandbox in mainspace that will require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. I PROD'd it and the creator removed it replying on the talk page We are working on improving the page we are students doing a project and waiting for everyone to add their sections to the page. We appreciate your patience. The creator has completed the training program so is aware of the Wikipedia:Education program but is apparently choosing not to use it. The creator's edit history shows they are aware of the existence of sandboxes but are choosing not to use them. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non apropriate usage of mainspace. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 12:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not homework, we've had enough of this sort of thing, there is no one at WP:ENB or WP:ENI who can deal with the onslaught, and the only suggestion there for dealing with similar problems is to stub the student articles or prod/AFD them. I placed a copy in User:Deshemp/Sandbox and asked that the students develop their article there. What has been demonstrated time and time again, without exception, at the Education Noticeboard is that the students dump their articles as term-end approaches and they need a grade, and they never return to cleanup, leaving us with little salvageable content and a cleanup mess. Sandboxes should be used for homework. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep - I'd like to see what they do in the next three days. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at least in its present form, per Stuart and Sandy. I doubt that the class will respond adequately to our advice, but if Bearian can really rewrite it, I'll consider changing my mind – otherwise, I'd rather see it deleted and see someone start it over from scratch. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hideyuki Akaza

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

Non-notable academic / physician. Sources provided are links to an author's bio on a publishing website, not a reliable secondary source. Canada Hky (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone more knowledgeable knows better sources? I will say thanks to anyone who will provide any additional sources.--Mishae (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, and The Scientific World Journal mean nothing to any of you?--Mishae (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails due to insufficient notability based on cited publication list and my own search of Pubmed. -- Scray (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find 100s of citations with ease on PubMed, probably 1000s if I tried harder. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The Scientific World Journal is a scientific publication and therefore a reliable source.--Mishae (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has the article subject received in-depth coverage in it? If so, please add the source to verify this, as one of the self-published sources was actually mislabelled as being published by The Scientific World Journal when it wasn't. --DAJF (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with GS h-index of 39, if I have correctly identified the author. Would nominator like to comment? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party reliable sourcing or in-depth coverage to establish notability of the subject. --DAJF (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you find when you click on the scholar link two inches above? Does this relate to WP:Prof in any way? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

It turns up a list of papers co-authored by "H Akaza". Is that alone sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements at WP:ACADEMIC? Maybe I'm missing something, but at present, the article does not appear to satisfy the basic notability criteria at WP:GNG nor any of the basic criteria at WP:ACADEMIC. --DAJF (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What it turns up is thousands of reliably published sources that mention Akaza's works, some no doubt non-trivially, many more than GNG requires. To be clear, these are the ones you get from the "cited by 213" links on the search results, not the search results themselves. That link means there are 213 other papers that cite this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, one of his works is cited 102 times, per Google search.--Mishae (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You must be doing a different Google search than the one I used, which returns citation counts of 213, 188, 179, 153, and 151 for his top five papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. Web of Science lists 137 publications with 1197 citations (top counts 68, 61, 50; h-index=19). This is about on the border of what we usually count as notable here (as usual, GS provides more inflated counts). And while the bio on Hindawi is not exactly self-published, it is certainly not peer-reviewed and just some info provided by the subject himself. In all, just squeaks by, I think. --Randykitty (talk) 07:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindawi web site claims that its journals are peer reviewed. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Oh yes, articles are definitely peer-reviewed. But such short bios are not, as far as I know. I wouldn't use it as a source, unless verified by other sources. --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the number of citations alone (probably) means Hideyuki Akaza deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Squareanimal (talk) 11:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Archer

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

Basically the only justification for the article to exist (as explained on the talk page) is that the subject has been featured in the Vanity Fair. Otherwise, I do not see any notability whatsoever, and I was not able to find sources demonstrating notability. I do not believe that every person ever featured in the Vanity Fair is notable. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as i wrote there it's a self promotion and/or a Major record label promotion - the pages in vanity fair are named "vanity fair promotion" - she's done nothing at all so far - Blump007 (talk) 09:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - looks like this has been written to promote her debut single, released on 3 December. Looks like a clear case of WP:TOOSOON. For all we know she might be all over the headlines next week but I can't see any significant coverage at all at the moment. Sionk (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article, with no evidence of notability. I think a speedy deletion would not be out of the question, but three previous incarnations of it have already been speedily deleted, and a clear AfD "delete" decision will make it easier to stop any further re-creations. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For anyone who is interested, here is a brief history of the four incarnations of this article. The original version of this article, written by an editor with the username Quinn Archer, was a blatantly promotional page with no serious claim of significance. The article was deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 and G11. User Quinn Archer then proceeded to create further copies of the same self-promotional page at User:Quinn Archer and Quinn archer. Both were speedily deleted as promotional, but not before Quinn archer had been taken to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinn archer, where three editors were unaninmous for "delete". User Quinn Archer was also advised against posting an autobiographical article. The next day, a brand new single purpose account was created, and recreated the same article, back at its original title Quinn Archer. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a good argument in favor of salting all these names.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. and Salt. per JamesBWatson. I was tempted to speedy this article and salt it, but in deference to James' suggestion, I'll wait for the outcome of this AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United States Gold Bureau

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

Promotional article -- almost a pure advertisement -- for non-notable company. The references are essentially press releases. accepted from AfC by now-blocked sockmaster DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom, sources must me from reliable and independent sources, they most have a certain depth of details, not just technical aspects. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Once among 50 fastest growing firms in central Texas is the closest this gets to a claim of notability, and that is not close. It is a firm going about its business, no encyclopaedic notability; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Not a notable company. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 GameMaker: Studio. Delete & redirect: as Hellknowz explains, there is little to merge, and the only possibly relevant content is unsourced and would be better off being rewritten entirely with references. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game Maker Language

(Find video game sources: "Game Maker Language" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Lack of Wikipedia:Notability and citations. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. InfamousMaker (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2013 (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/2013 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to GameMaker: Studio. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed I would agree to that as the GameMaker: Studio already contains enough of what needs to be said on the subject. InfamousMaker (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to GameMaker: Studio as basically WP:HOWTO. This is a language documentation, not an encyclopedic article about the language, which by itself is not a notable topic covered in-depth in independent sources, i.e. WP:GNG. Only thing that could be mergable is the criticism section, but it is completely unsourced, so I cannot endorse such a merge. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Makes more sense to delete it really most of the information was outdated anyway and provided no citations anyhow. 72.72.229.110 (talk) 05:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although true, those aren't actually reasons to delete alone. Many of our articles are outdated and lack citations, that doesn't necessarily make them non-notable per our notability guideline. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Sloan Macleod

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

I do not see the notability here -- just temporary internet celebrity. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claim to notability rests with a single YouTube video. Per WP:1EVENT the preference is first create an article on the event, then create a bio later if the person has other notable events besides the one. But it's hard to see even creating an article for the video, it's lacking in sources. Suggest a sentence or two in slut shaming. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article relies almost exclusively on primary sources, and fails to demonstrate any real notability claim strong enough to get her past WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HDR Darkroom

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

No evidence of WP:NSOFTWARE notability. - Mr X 18:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Software article of unclear notability. Lacks independent RS references. A search turned up several reviews, but with the exception of [1], these are found on personal blogs or download sites. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found [2], and [3], but I think that is rather marginal sorucing for notability, and falls into the delete side of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Gaming League

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

Article about long since defunct computer game league that never took off. There's a single very minor mention in a local newspaper but no media coverage other than that, and no other references other than links to PGL's long since defunct web site. Attempts to "take over" the article have been made by an unrelated, and equally non-notable, computer game league with the same name, which is an additional reason to delete this article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:32, 27 November 2013 (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) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have died long ago and only uses one reference that isn't itself. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable in-depth independent sources (neither old one, not this apparently new one). Note that the title is hard to search due to being very generic with tons of unrelated hits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Weaver (American football)

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

No indication that this individual meets WP:NGRIDIRON. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 16:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that he passes WP:GNG either. If anyone can find something, let us know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. He's only on the practice squad right now, but he may end up starting some games due to injury as reported here. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq....William 18:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he actually plays in an NFL game.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denville Hall

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

Article doesn't appear to meet general notability. There's no mention of the Hall in the Mail article cited. There is a Telegraph article - but it doesn't appear to have anything substantial on the home itself. The only other articles mentioning the place appear to have brief mentions, and are mostly concerned with the names of its residents. A re-write would work, but I can't find anything on which I could base such a thing. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle}

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not really notable. A nice place, no doubt, but quite low profile with no reliable sources I can find. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 18:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this squeaks by on general notability. It is mentioned in scads of obituaries and there are also articles mentioning fundraising for it. The location of at least one play is based on it. I found one opinion article substantially about it in The Telegraph, and there's an article in The Times with the headline "For My Final Act", dated 18 April 2005, that is at least partly about it (sadly I can't see that). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough RS citations for now. Philip Cross (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for its many well-known residents and frequent mentions in obituaries and the like. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - On casual glance I'd say it's been fixed - But I would sincerely urge people to look at the sources again. There's not significant coverage of anything to do with the hall with the possible exception of source number 7 (but I can't see that one). So I would still argue for it not to be kept. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the work has been done on it it has reached general notability. Jack1956 (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- With a lot of notable residents, the hall is probably notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ZHUB.com

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

Non-notable website/web service. All available sources to be found consist entirely of self-published sources (the company's own website or press releases they have published.) Given the language in the article, I'd almost say it could be deleted as WP:SPAM, but that could be fixed if any reliable sources could be found. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, promotional, no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Classic spam, replete with rampant overlinking. bd2412 T 21:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources and the article itself is spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud

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

Unsourced essay, not an encyclopedic article. Likely original research. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the text of a presentation - presumably the same one that accompanies the powerpoint slides used as a "source". Definitely not what Wikipedia is for. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally {{PROD}}ed this as an essay, and the template was removed. It looked like a straightforward case to me. I get 8 database hits for the phrase "Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud,' but within the articles they don't seem to be talking about a unified concept so much as listing the elements of trends in data, social computing, &c., in a consistent order. --some jerk on the Internet (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic should have it's own page but the reference used is obviously a non-RS. Social, Mobile, Analytics, and Cloud is a notable topic and deserves to have a page but needs reliable sources to back it up. Instead of listing and describing what each of the subjects are, instead maybe an updated version could show how they all can be incorporated together to better a business and the future of businesses. I recently stumbled upon an article not to long ago [4] and after reading this page, I was reminded of it. Might be of some use. Meatsgains (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source pointed out by Meatsgains provides a list of 2013's overused business buzzwords, including "social media" and "big data analytics". It does not describe the conjunction of social media, mobile platforms, analytics and cloud computing in the manner described in the article under discussion for deletion. The present article appears to be about "how to succeed in future business", containing large bits of speculation about what the future may hold, rather than any actual verifiable content about practices that are actually in use. The fact that Meatsgains source lists these topics as overused buzzwords indicates at least some sentiment that the SMAC concept may not be taking hold. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, not an encyclopedic topic. And why oh why do you still allow brand new users to create articles? See Special:Contributions/Ankitgupta667 the single-purpose account which created this on their second edit. W Nowicki (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has blanked the page, essentially requesting deletion. WP:CSD#G7 probably applies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:57, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AVESTA computing issues

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

Non-notable article. The title refers to a company; however, the content refers to a description of accounting theory. I cannot find anything that supports this theory under this name. At worst appears to be a hoax used to create an article under a company name at best original research. reddogsix (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have not been able to find anything on the web about AVESTA computing issues but the original article was created by User:Fesaconsolidation. FESA Cnsolidation is a product of Flex systems limited] out of Hong Kong. The one IP that has edited the article is from Hong Kong. It appears to be promotion for something. GB fan 15:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See whether the administrator can rename the previous user name in order to avoid confusion.

The essay in fact do not include any product name but mention different information system initiatives. The is everyday life of observation and academic study for a very long time knowing both professional accountant and business analyst are struggling in data manipulation despite their organizations are implementing a highly business process automation system as business environment are changing very fast. These automated systems are becoming reducing the useful life.

All these are fact finding despite the documentation cannot be found or copied from the internet. In addition this documentation can be valuable for affected recipients so that they can have quickly access the big picture of the issues concern. Please consider to retain this documentation and suggest any change specifically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like WP:OR to me. reddogsix (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ok, I will try to cite more reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article when the topic of AVESTA is not a new, it is merely to summarize of fact.

Also remove some suspect term related to Flexsytem such as Finance Computing Framework. And add some famous solution providers such as Oracle Hyperion, Cognos, OutlookSoft, Business Objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.81.64 (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I thought it was a but WP:SOAP at first, but it's evolved into a much better article now. I agree with reddogsix that at the moment it appears to be WP:OR, but this may just be because of a lack of reliable sources. Is there any way we can get a user familiar with financial stuff to comment on the notability/mainstreamness of this article's topic? EvergreenFir (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, I can provide guidance. These are not issues, but very, very general business procedures. There is nothing notable about the processes and it reads more like a guidebook of basic business processes than an article. The term AVESTA has no accepted accounting definition. reddogsix (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding some of configuration works relevant to resolve these AVESTA computing issues. And try to do something later to avoid reader perceive it as guidebook. AVESTA is merely the abbreviation of common accepted computing terms when these computer term in turn to support the work of accounting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

add "correlate with an evolution and diffusion of end-user computing" provide support that stimulate demand for information compare with mainframe ages before year 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerating demand for insightful information when management believe these end-user computing "can-do", => more computing issues triggered as summarized in six issues of AVESTA computing issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elim13579 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can probably quibble about whether to call this promotional or original research or what have you. But the bottom line is that this article isn't supported by reliable sources, because reliable sources in accounting and computer science don't use AVESTA as a term. A fairly tightly targeted search reveals only Wikipedia, false positives, and sites related to FlexSystem Limited; they're the only source for this material. Similar Book and Scholar searches reveal nothing at all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so the key problem is the term "AVESTA" itself, will try to rename with notable source when the content itself is not a new, all around the computing issues for highly demand accounting environment — Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.127.131.135 (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

agree to delete when the AVESTA cannot find notable source directly as it is abbreviation of six business term. and I have created a new page management reporting that can be find notable source. so please delete directly without like it to the new page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to spend a little time reading up on some of Wikipedia's policies. The problem with this article wasn't the single word AVESTA, it's that it is original research. There are reliable sources that use the various terms you are using, to be certain. But claiming that those ideas can be put together to form an identifiable topic? There don't seem to be sources for that, and that means we cannot have an article like this. I notice you've created Management Reporting by copying and pasting most of the content from this article. In the likely case that this article gets deleted, there's actually a speedy deletion criterion (G4) that will let an administrator quickly delete that, too. Giving it a new name doesn't solve the problem (and for the record, searches for even a few of the terms aren't any better than they were when searching for AVESTA; reliable sources simply do not cover this material in this manner). Also, I notice the most recent comment here and the new article creation were by a new user, User:Mgt88drcr as opposed to the earlier User:Elim13579. As you are doing the same sort of things, and communicate in a very similar manner, you may wish to read the policy on use of multiple accounts. In short: you shouldn't do that, especially in a situation like this. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading some of the rules knowing that all posted document must have notable source, agree to delete both documents but do not know how to delete these document. I will try to learn how to write a good document with following rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 06:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Apart from a game of buzzword bingo, just what is this? It's a series of descriptive sentences that each make some sort of rational, albeit low-content statement. However it's completely unclear as to just what they're supposed to be applicable to. The scope of this article is unintelligible, almost to CSD level. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

of course want to delete this article but no way to do so, not knowing why the system restore the deleted article Mgt88drcr (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits didn't delete the article (i.e. remove it), they merely blanked its content and left an empty article behind. If you wish to delete it, and you're the only author, then you could add the WP:CSD#U1 template to it like this: {{db-u1}}

Andy Dingley (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above if we cannot get a speedy. Also related in some way perhaps would be Multiway Data Analysis. Hard to tell since I cannot tell what it is talking about either. Note in English capital letters would indicate a proper noun, such as a specific product from a specific company. W Nowicki (talk) 17:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiway Data Analysis isn't an article, but it is a topic. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon drafting a new article titled Multiway Data Analysis starting from a set of notable sources, suggest let me more time to rewrite A-V-E-S-T-A computing issues in a way that can have more direct notable sources when I believe I am not capable to invent something, all these are common phenomenon in finance and accounting field when I have been working in this field for over 20+ years - no great news there, mainly to uncover the very old news. Need more time to locate some of notable sources matched with rewrited content. Thanks for comment again.Mgt88drcr (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi administrators, I have spent extra effort in past few days to rewrite this article with matching relevant notable sources, despite it is not perfect at this moment as not all notable sources are derived from academic books and research papers. Please have a review whether the current version can fit for the wiki minimum requirements (to exempt from deletion). Coming weeks I will busy to clear some of routine works so I may not have spare time during office hours to invest further works on this article. May be spend sometime during evening time on this.Mgt88drcr (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's looking a lot better now. Seems worth it to keep it, especially after the work Mgt88drcr did. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi administrator, in order to avoid confusion of AVESTA with any company name, please help to move this page to A-V-E-S-T-A computing issues as I had created the page "A-V-E-S-T-A computing issues" before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgt88drcr (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lets wait until the outcome of this AFD is clear before moving the article to another name. GB fan 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe I am missing something but looking through the references on the article that I have access to, I do not see a single one that uses AVESTA or A-V-E-S-T-A. I haven't found one that even links Aggregation, Versioning, Elimination, Standardization, Tagging and Allocation together. Does one of the sources that are not on the internet do this or is this linkage a new thing being introduced here? GB fan 14:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously I am considering the change of name, say Accounting computing issues (two -ing, seem not so good), Accounting issues (confuse with the setting up or amendment of accounting standards to solve particular accounting issues), Accounting information system issues or Issues in accounting information systems (seem ok, the scope can be too board). Of course we can find relevant computing issues individually over the internet, not easy to find all six computing issues together. In fact my original objective behind the writing of the article is to describe and explain Six areas of computing issues of financial and management accounting encountered by multinational corporations. There are a lot of onerous computing issues, so want to focus on important six areas. In fact it is not easy to develop and implement any system to solve all these six computing issues together for any "changing organization". And it is difficult to locate an organization they encounter all these six computing issues that cannot be solved.Mgt88drcr (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no coherent topic here that has also been covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no coherent topic here, period. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this article will be deleted, in order to support the interpretation of rules and regulation (may be I will write other articles), does it mean any wiki article shall be noted to a set of coherent topic, cannot note to different sources they are not related to the same topic. For example, the article of Hong Kong where Hong Kong I am most familiar, there are about 240 notable source, for example, I am not prepare to challenge the quality of the article, but following notable source are not attribute to coherent topic including 1. Corruption, 2. top 10 countries, 3. Climate, 4. Sexual Orientation and 5. Human Rights 6. great epidemic. May be very difficult to find an notable source to include all these six items so the author have to locate sources from different website.

34."Corruption Perceptions Index 2012". Transparency International. 2012. Retrieved 8 June 2013.]]

136 ^ "Top 10 Countries". The Heritage Foundation. Archived from the original on 24 January 2008. Retrieved 1 February 2008. Note: Hong Kong shall not be a country

128 "Climate of Hong Kong". Hong Kong Observatory. 4 May 2003. Retrieved 2 August 2007.

114 "Sexual Orientation and Human Rights in Hong Kong". Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor. Retrieved 2 March 2010.

79.^ "疫情衝擊香港經濟損失巨大" [The impact of economic losses in the great epidemic] (in Chinese). BBC News. 28 May 2003. Retrieved 24 August 2010.

On anther angle to evaluate the article "Hong Kong", it is also very difficult to locate a set of coherent topic to have all the following key words as include in the article.

2.1 Pre-colonial 2.2 British colonial era 2.3 Japanese invasion 2.4 Cold War era 2.5 Since 1997 3.1 Legal system and judiciary 3.2 Human rights 3.3 Administrative districts 3.4 Military 4 Geography and climate 5 Economy 5.1 Infrastructure 6.1 Education 6.2 Health 7 Culture 7.1 Sport 7.2 Architecture

https://www.google.com.hk/webhp?source=search_app&gws_rd=cr&ei=4zSdUtiyEonFkgWI44HgCw#q=Pre-colonial++British+colonial+era+Japanese+invasion++Cold+War+era++Since+1997+3.1+Legal+system+and+judiciary+3.2+Human+rights+3.3+Administrative+districts+Military++Geography+and+climate+Economy+Infrastructure++Education++Health+Culture++Sport++Architecture

Obviously Wiki - Hong Kong come first, and no way to find other coherent topic to include all the key word relevant to Hong Kong.

In conclusion, the article "Hong Kong" is an excellent article that is not easy to find better one outside wiki.Mgt88drcr (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note User:Mgt88drcr attempted to move the article to Automation issues of accounting. Since this AfD is ongoing, and since there is opposition to a requested move discussion currently going on at the article's talk page, I've reverted the move. —C.Fred (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way this article keeps mutating over time has reinforced what some early commenters said: this article does not have a cohesive, well-defined topic that it's writing about. Yes, the six items may all be issues with accounting automation; however, the grouping of the six appears to be a new grouping—that is, original research. While some of the content may be salvageable, that would be fragments in other articles. In the long run, the best thing to do with this article is delete it, rather than try to do a scattered series of merges. —C.Fred (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless there is an established paradigm in the literature that breaks accounting automation issues into precisely the six categories claimed in this article (in the same way that there is an established paradigm that breaks down network communications into seven abstract layers, for example), then this entire article, both title and content, is inherently original research, a novel theory that cannot be referenced to reliable sources, and there is simply no way to save it, it must be deleted. If there is some information in here that, as it happens, could be the basis for an article with an entirely different scope and direction, then let that article be created independently. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can rewrite in a manner without mention specific number of issues grouped by well defined categories. So I will list more piecemeal automation issues of accounting as long as I can find notable source documents. Mgt88drcr (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi administrator, now I have rewritten the document in a way try maximizing the use of notable sources in relation to the proposed titled "Automation issues of accounting". See you comments. Thanks.Mgt88drcr (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On further consideration, I'm realizing that the article itself isn't so much providing information as it is serving as a directory to a large collection of external resources. It provides no details about any automation issue in accounting. The only information it presents is the trivial "Accounting automation software has its issues" and "spreadsheets are good". Beyond that it consists of a collection of arbitrary topics from the accounting field for which the author has identified automation-related articles elsewhere on the Web. Even though they are wrapped up in footnotes as though they were being used to support information being given in the article, the references really are the article. It's a portal, rather like Index of Hawaii-related articles, but the links lead outside, taking the article into the area covered by WP:LINKFARM under the article What Wikipedia is not. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, add back some of analysis when it is deleted previously Mgt88drcr (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have reviewed all of above concerned. And effect significant change of the article. May not be perfect at this moment (undo a lot of previous deleted paragraph plus add some of my previous written documents). But I have to clear the day time works please let me more time to improve the article. For any insufficient notable sources, I will do it accordingly.Mgt88drcr (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing whether using question style is ok?Mgt88drcr (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC) 1 Initial review of automation issues of accounting 1.1 Are you triggering automation issues or accounting issues? 1.2 Are you completing implementation of automation or computerization? 1.3 Are you responsible for strategic business unit or legal entity accounting? 1.4 Is IFRS extending to include management accounting? 1.5 Is non-spreadsheet tools better than spreadsheet tool? 2 Further review of automation issues of accounting 2.1 Rely on spreadsheet tool 2.2 Not rely on spreadsheet tool 3 Optional review of automation issues of accounting 4 Emergent automation infrastructure for 21st century accounting 5 See also 6 References[reply]

Delete This article appears to be a how-to guide on how to automate accounting practices, rather than a cohesive article about any actually defined issues that have been identified in the use of accounting software. The tone of the article ("Are you doing this right?") indicates that it might be useful as a management magazine article, or even a WikiVersity entry, but not here at Wikipedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree The article is focus on describe automation issues of accounting rather than focus on describing how to implement automation of accounting. This can be very long story to discuss on how to implement automation of accounting. Agree Have removed the question like style.Mgt88drcr (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WikiDan61, in fact I shall realize to define issues that have been identified in the use of accounting software is a good point I shall explore further notable evidences in-depth rather than rely on my own experiences - the work of writing wiki article is totally different from employment application and interview that heavily rely on relevant working experiences rather than notable certification in respect of senior position and feel interest to chat with you on pre-defined time during coming public holiday. Also thanks for your editing of the article titled Multiway data analysisMgt88drcr (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all comments and also I have spent sometime to learn What Wikipedia is not. I have rewritten and restructured the subject matter and ultimately propose changed to titled Accounting process automation (i.e. to remove AVESTA) which is obviously different from Accounting software. Next step I will try to invite an native English speaker to rewrite the whole article in order to achieving better English. Hope you can support my work and give me more specific comments about contents. Of course this is not the end of the article, shall be a new beginning of this article for continuing improvement. Mgt88drcr (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hornblower

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

Unremarkable, non-notable person. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 14:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent sourcing about Hornblower, in particular beyond local coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No signficant coverage about him. There is an Ontario court judge by the same name which made looking for sources a bit tougher. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hesitoism

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

Declined PROD. Couldn't find any sources at all, reliable or otherwise. At the very least, appears non-notable/neologistic. At the very most, a hoax/made-up thing. Moswento ^talky 14:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would suggest that this be deleted as such I can't find anything relating anywhere near the topic of dissucssion so it would fail. WP:NOTE and WP:GNG. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 14:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google can't even find unreliable sources. Original research, or perhaps something made up while bored in Philosophy 101, but clearly not notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as OR. Kolbasz (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be someone's personal quasi-philosophical yet entirely superficial post-modernist view of philosophy. Not sure how that's science-related. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gbooks and GNews archive searches are yielding zero results (other than the Wikipedia article). The topic fails WP:N. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW - I can't find anything online, after a few searches. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not huge amounts of participation here, but there hasn't been much discussion in the past... 7 days, so relisting seems silly. Everyone except the creator seems to support deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philatelic exhibition in Mersin

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

Event is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :In WP, notability is more or less a subjective evaluation. The proposer may find an exebition in a remote land non notable, but as a creator I find it notable. The exebition was held during an international sports event and its thema was Olympic games . I think this is enough to be notable. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of exhibition is rarely notable unless it is a really big international show. This was a side event to another occasion and the Olympics link doesn't make it notable. Notability is not subjective. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Philatelic exhibitions are very common. The American Philatelic Society lists 30 recurring exhibitions in its "World Series of Philately" alone. Simply having a thematic connection to the Olympics isn't enough to demonstrate notability. That would require significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (and, ideally, something to distinguish a given event from the hundreds of other philatelic exhibitions held each year worldwide). The Fédération Internationale de Philatélie's international shows such as Brasiliana 2013 or Philakorea 2014 (once per country per ten years, strict qualifications to enter) might clear that bar (or might be better served as a list and a general article); this does not. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to provide anybody with the deleted content if/when the subject becomes more notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Benoit

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - has not yet had one top tier fight - far from the three required by WP:MMANOT. Definately WP:TOOSOON Peter Rehse (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral He's had a top-tier fight now, and since he made his UFC debut on short notice against someone who missed weight (and who is on a few Top 10 lists including Fight Matrix's) he'll almost certainly get a second one. I agree the page is premature and doesn't meet the technical requirements but it seems silly to get rid of it at this point. Ryan Benoit has at least a 50% chance of meeting the notability requirements some time next year, he's not an arbitrary D-League fighter, so I'd urge folks to keep that in mind. Beansy (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He just lost that fight and there's nothing that says he'll get two more top tier fights. I'd have no objections to the article being userfied and recreated when he meets WP:NMMA, but it ought not to be kept in the main article space awaiting that time. Papaursa (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fight of the Night winner and made $100,000 because his opponent missed weight, I think he passes WP:GNG. LiberatorLX (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Getting a $100,000 bonus for being submitted because your opponent missed weight makes you lucky, not notable. Currently does not meet NMMA since he's still two top tier fights short and assuming he'll get them is CRYSTALBALL. Like Beansy and Papaursa I have no problem with the article being kept in some user's sandbox.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight (a loss).Mdtemp (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Sellers Butler

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

Appears to fail our general notability guidelines. I struggled to find multiple reliable secondary sources for her. Perhaps someone else can prove this wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This Butler didn't do it for me. She sold souvenir paintings to the tourists for $18-40. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find any significant coverage. Moswento ^talky 14:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The one reference in the article is merely a passing mention and I have found nothing more/better through multiple searches. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laura BenAmots

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

This artist may fail our general notability guidelines, and more. It also appears that the artist or someone related to them has edited the article a lot (WP:PROMOish). However, perhaps others can prove otherwise. SarahStierch (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I don't think a major COI can be proven here, generally fairly minor formatting edits. There is coverage in her local newspaper Colorado Springs Independent but nowhere else, from what I can see. She won a very local Arts award in 2012, so possibly will get wider recognition at some point. I can't see any claims of notability in the article, there is only one newspaper article I can see that gives any biographical detail, while her exhibitions haven't attracted widespread interest. Probably fails WP:GNG and definitely WP:ARTIST at the moment. Sionk (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
regretful delete more likely newbie cv cut paste. one good source is not "multiple". if she were to travel show to denver or taos, with some coverage, then revisit, til then userify. Duckduckstop (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Having been relisted, I think the discussion has yielded a clear consensus for deletion. I see no particular reason to invoke IAR in spite of notability guidelines, which are not met, as per widespread agreement here. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Conscientiology

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

Article was PRODded with reason: "Non-notable journal. No independent sources, not indexed in any selective database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals." It was de-PRODded by the article creator who added text indicating that the journal is indexed by selective major databases like Science Citation Index and Scopus. However, searching for the journal in Thomson Reuter's Master Journal list draws a blank. Neither is the journal listed in the Scopus title list. De-PROD edit summary claimed that the journal meets criterion 1 of WP:NJournals: "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." As evidence for this is given the fact that 18 university libraries carry the journal. Thus is a rather paltry number, of course. A Google Scholar search gives citation rates in the single digits. In short, indexing in selective major databases fails verification and the journal is barely cited: a clear miss of criterion 1 and 2. I don't see any evidence that it meets criterion 3 or WP:GNG, so the PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Randykitty tells the truth. For me this a matter of interpretation of criterion 1 and 2 and presumed notability. You find my justifications hier and hier.
Although there are no explicit entry on "Thomson Reuter" and "Scopus" there must be somehow a indexation there, otherwise this information wouldn't be avaible on this link. Chees! - AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 03:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't say I've ever heard of the "International Science Index" or the "World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology", so I don't know where they get their information, but if Scopus and TR themselves don't list the journal, it's not indexed by them. --Randykitty (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I think you misinterpret the "International Science Index" link: when I click the search button, it actually says "not found". The indexing info is apparently not for the Journal of Conscientology, but for another journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. I took the link from Notability (academic journals). -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I may have misinterpret something, as a matter of fact. The indexations I mentioned are in fact from the World Academy of Science itself. At least you are keen-eyed. Thx. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's research. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: doesn't even come close to meeting WP:NJournals. The only notability claims are that it's "indexed in the Zeitschriftendatenbank" (which, according to its German Wikipedia article, seems to index any and all periodicals) and kept in a few libraries. Kolbasz (talk) 00:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Webcat and Zeitschriftendatenbank are listed on point 6 of "Notability (notes & examples)", as examples on how to evaluate criterion 1. All of the libraries listed on these databases are ACADEMIC institutions. This should be a good criterion, 'cos all the other indexes are only for natural science. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they are, but what that note says is not that it is sufficient to be included in those databases, but that those databases can help in finding out which libraries hold the journal. For this journal, those holding numbers are very low and way below what we usually take as indicating notability here. --Randykitty (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added further information. The article should be above the border line now. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm sorry, but EBSCO is not really a selective database and none of the other sources that you added comes even close to satisfying WP:GNG, WP:NJounals, or even WP:FRINGE. --Randykitty (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Yes. But apart from EBSCO, if it covers exclusively two major events on the discipline one can presume notability, isn't it? -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. As you say, they covered these events. Apart from the question of whether these events in themselves are notable, that only makes the journal notable if somebody else took note of that coverage. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Well, let's be honest. If ya think a journal about a unusual subject, with over 15 years existance and distributed in 34 differnt countries is not notable enough, then we better eliminate it. 'Cos The bar is much too high, I must say. My mistake was to take another entries about journals with minimum information as reference. Since I don't wanna criticize another articles, but play by Wiki's rules instead, it is a bit of pointless to defend the article any further. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 09:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, none of that makes a journal notable. What makes it notable is if others take note of it and that fact can be verified by reliable sources. Please feel free to criticize other articles. Some of those "minimal" articles may indeed be about non-notable journals, others may be about journals that are included in selective major databases, which would make them notable, even if that doesn't make an article necessarily much more substantial. --Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Randykitty. Thanks again, for your feedback. My idea was to make a article that meet Wiki's standards and not to go like "if journal X deserves to be here than JofC deserves it too". But if you wanna compare: if Journal of Conscientiology gets eliminated any of the list "See also" should be eliminated too. I also added this third-party reference, as a main reference. News papers and magazines sure are reliable sources (at least for saying people are aware of it). And I'm sure someone here can read Portuguese to verify it. So what do you mean by "others" take note?

I had also another idea: to merge JofC into the main article Conscienciology. Just realised Wiki-EN doesn't have such article and I don't have time to write it now. So if you have to delete it, cary on. -Cheers! --AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For me this is an IAR situation. The article is adequately supported by sources, and is likely to be useful to readers, so I don't see any benefit to eliminating it. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope that you noticed that the sources are either to the journal itself (or to the site of the IAC which publishes it) or just in-passing mentions (at best). The only independent "references" are a mention on Open Library, a mention on a booksellers site, the listing in EBSCO (which is not very selective at all), and a conference announcement where one of the 4 organizers is the journal's EIC (which is the only mention of the journal on that page). --Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The first substantial discussion of the journal itself in my GSearch had this to say: "And the academy’s members have their own publication, called The Journal of Conscientiology, in which they publish their research. I’ll wager every chakra in my body that the IAC needs its own journal because the research carried out by its members would never be accepted for publication in a legitimate scientific journal." Obviously it's "just" a blog post, but the claim of "peer review" is surely utterly false. A look at GScholar shows a decided lack of citation of pretty much anything they publish. There is no JSTOR footprint whatsoever. The message I get is that this isn't even important enough for the usual skeptic groups and authors to condemn. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my friend, how can you paste a blog content here and still say "Obviously it's "just" a blog post"? You're saying, we should ignore your post? The journal doesn't belong to IAC. They are only the publishers. Do you know what peer review means? As it says on the article there are 274 authors published, affiliated to 32 different academic institutions. And they are not from Conscientiology itself. There are parapsychologists, physicians, etc. Too bad for this blog. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 'peer reviewed' can mean almost anything - or almost nothing. It is certainly no guarantee of any particular standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bottom line: Even if parapsychology and OBEs isn't "true" it shouldn't be that much problem to publish on Wikipedia that people do research on this. As Looie496 wrote, I'm begining to think this is a IAR case. -- AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 13:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we 'IAR'? What makes this journal which doesn't meet our notability guidelines different from any other journal that doesn't meet our notability guidelines? We have rules and guidelines for a reason, and if you are going to suggest they need to be ignored in this case, you should explain what makes this case different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears to be in favor of keeping the article and article as it stands does not appear to be a violation of WP:LIBEL. I am less inclined to believe the arguments that it seriously merits inclusion because of the company's size, but the other arguments about having attracted news coverage seem to fit the bill. Kept, without any prejudice against opening another AfD after the current controversy has faded. NW (Talk) 06:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kleargear

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

Fails WP:ORG ,WP:NOTNEWS ,WP:Libel and article was created with edit summary Kleargear extortion and it is basically about a story of a women being fined for posting a negative review. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Not sure how this fails WP:Libel - perhaps some clarity on the matter, since the details are sourced? Additionally, whilst this does detail to the tune of WP:NOTNEWS, the article can and will be expanded to include general retailer information, in the vein on ThinkGeek and other online retail brands listed on Wikipedia.

Stuart Steedman (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The article is clearly defamatory and clearly lacks WP:RS sources.This source is user generated and from Ripoff Report where anyone can file a post free, un-moderated and uncorroborated complaint against anyone and similar is the case with Popehat a legal blog and Boing Boing is a blog which merely states the incident.Further large sections are unsourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Standard outrage-of-the-day article on PR nightmare that went viral on blogs and tabloids. It will be forgotten in a few days, just like Ocean Marketing/Ocean Stratagy (sic)/Paul Christoforo. This is a clear attack article, and the subject is not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. : Tentative. A quick search on Google News shows that this is getting quite significant exposure if not coverage. It does need a good cleanup though. I've tried to address WP:RS by adding in more credible sources especially in the areas where citations were requested. Zhanzhao (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic comments by anon IP about censorship

Kleargear is VERY clearly an ongoing fraud on the public and anybody attempting to censor the truth under these circumstances should be considered a part of the conspiracy. This is as bad as it gets and if Wiki fails here it is "good" for absolutely fuk all because its the crooks controlling content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBODY arguing against the very clear fact that this is a criminal fraud is either completely and fully retarded or part of the criminal conspiracy. The facts have been proven beyond any possible doubt. Censorship under these circumstances is an offense against the public good, something CERTAINLY not envisioned in the creation of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.164.215 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We WIkipedia are not a Consumer forum to campaign against any company. Wikipedia is not a Newspaper and all references solely focus on the incident and not on the company.It still clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:ORG .Even this Reference makes The case for reading the Small print focus that consumers need to read the terms and conditions and also quoted the example of GameStation.com rather than the company most of the other references are from customer activism sites.As NinjaRobotPirate rightly points there is nothing to state this incident will have long lasting impact and is mere news.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"WE"? Tell us some more about what Wiki ISN'T.

You never bothered to check any of the details one iota yet you sit in judgement and censor the truth? This is a public fraud issue. An obvious and ONGOING fraud on the public. That means that even now, this very second, a criminal is ripping people off ... perhaps your grandmother, or your neighbor.

Censorship of the truth is good for what reason again?

This is an example of internet fraud by an scam business and it is hurting innocent people every day. How DARE somebody spew about how this that or the other thing "fails" when they are too lazy to determine what the facts are?

I read recently that editors on Wiki have dropped 70% over 10 years and are now 92% male. NOBODY is attracted to Wiki because its become a little dopey bum patting club of ego driven censors, not contributors.

Given this outrage I won't even bother with Wiki again either. Its a waste of time. Sad for the public, sad for gramma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.153.242.30 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So we swallowed our disgust, again, and reported the FACT that KlearGear is advertising on Google. Surprisingly, the censor "Pharaoh of the Wizards" has removed a very simple question from his talk page without taking the minimal effort at answering it. Yet another case of censorship and how is it even possible to whallow with these types on a daily basis?

"Censorship of questions[edit]

"You deleted a simple question. I asked you why you would censor the copious work of another without bothering to even check the references first. (and request an entire delete) So your censorship extends to the very simple questions about your actions from other users? That is getting really, really whacko. "

Reply This Edit was reverted by me clearly is a violation of WP:BLP the name ,address and phone number of a lawyer is given whom you accuse of issuing the letters and threatening collection action.It also clears to adhere by WP:NPOV policy and lacks WP:RS sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The name, address, phone number and everything else related to this professional individual is public domain and was retrieved from fully public sources that are available to anyone with an extra 10 seconds on their hands. So this info is verbotten on Wiki? I have attempted MULTPLE times to phone him and every other PoS associated with KlearGear without any result whatever. What has this censor done? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further - I haven't "accused" a lawyer of "issuing the letters and threatening collection action". I'm stating it as a pure, rock solid 100% guaranteed certain fact. (and the reference to that fact was deleted along with it.) This discourse is like arguing with a child. One will never "win". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::Please go through this WP:BLPPRIVACY articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons on Wikipedia . Further none of the sources say here he issued threatening collection action letters.Your edits were reverted by editors only because they did not or rather violated the Policies and Guidelines of Wikipedia Sorry if appears otherwise to you.I leave it to the closing admin to take a call.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is entirely moot. The POINT here is that censorship of a critical issue to the public good should NOT be made in a split second, BEFORE a single reference is checked. That is what occurred here. You can go back on the many details and attempt to justify that instant judgement call after the fact all you like. It is APPEARING Wiki is a little boys bum patting club with multitudes hunting for the next "badge" while peeing on the public good from a position of admitted ignorance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.182.114 (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MORE censorship ... this time a very direct, very relevant quote from "Ripoff.com" gets zapped but lets call it "tidying up" shall we? Did this censor spend the less than 3 seconds it takes to notice the endorsements on this insulting frauds' website right this bloody, damn second? kleargear.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC) ONE contributor over the past 10 days and 6 censors. True Story. Errr zero contributors now. I love Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.108.87.20 (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. Now even the useless comments here are being censored from existence. I simply related that there is mega large news for Kleargear today and since there are ZERO contributors left, where are ANY of the 6 censors to let the public know? Off censoring others of course. Its laughable if it wasn't soooooo sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And the news? How silly dilly of me. A Washington based consumer group is suing these K9s. http://neer-do-well-hall-of-infamey.blogspot.ca/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 6 censors have chased the one poster away. BIG NEWS on Kleargear today and WHO is telling the public?

Nada Wiki censors ... no badges in helping the public avoid a scam. Ppppppfffffffft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoxxman (talk • contribs) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and continue clean up. Plenty of notable coverage in the news. --George100 (talk) 10:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and continue cleanup. WP:ORG No. The company was notable with significant sales(40 million annual) and position in market before the events took place. WP:NOTNEWS No. A five year old event is hardly breaking news and it also shows the controversy isn't going away.WP:Libel No. Libel means false, the events are not in question and are not even denied by the company. The article does need cleaning, i'll try to address the more egregious ones. RJFlorida (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)— RJFlorida (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

So the censor who wants this item pulled and has deleted everything while contributing nothing over weeks has won an award badge for his many efforts. Same censor who removes simple questions from his talk page and is STILL pushing for complete censorship of the whole smoozle ... even when it would be IMPOSSIBLE to deny this enterprise is a wicked large SCAM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.124.171.20 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Company did receive a lot of coverage and a PR nightmare but solely for the fine imposed on the customer .It is for this reason that a admin did not Speedy the article and suggested AFD. Almost entire article is about the fine and the non-disparagement clause and most of the the sources are from Consumer activist sites and speak only about the fine and are from Nov 2013.There is little coverage beyond this and the company fails WP:NOTNEWS and there is nothing to state the Company is notable beyond this Fine issue and it fails WP:ORG. Large sections of the article lack WP:RS sources and some of them with consumer activism sites negative material needs to [WP:LIBEL| be referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.] Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further one editor has attempted to contact the company and its lawyer and then posts the Lawyer address,email and phone on in violation of BLPPRIVACY stating he issued threatening notices with no sources and the a lawyer can sue Wikipedia for this .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And STILL this censor is arguing nonsense. (but HE has a badge now tee hee) Does this censor deny that Kleargear is a scam? Has this censor done any due diligence? (a phone call?)

You forget that Wikipedia does not permit original research, so "due diligence" and "phoning" are strongly against Wikipedia policy. [5]

Stuart Steedman (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This censor deleted EVERYTHING and has contributed nothing ... even to this second. Why then is the reward a "badge"?

I would also very much like to know why this censor STILL opposes this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.48.54 (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete fails [[WP:ORG] and WP:ONEEVENT.128.107.239.234 (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Has more than enough notable, third party, non-trivial coverage to surpass Wikipedia standard rules on notability. I personally think those rules are too generous, but you have to go with how they are written and how they've been applied to other deletion discussions to be fair instead of singling this article out because you don't like it. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment. This certainly attracting some attention in the mainstream press right now, thought the storm may well blow over soon, at which point consensus may change. I note that WP:ONEEVENT applies to people, not businesses. Dolescum (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: relevant, and the company had sufficient turnover as to be a recognized player in the online retail space. Also a good example for Streisand Effect to link to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssteedman (talk • contribs) 06:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both--Ymblanter (talk) 12:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Seaward

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

Also nominating The Strolling Theatricals as they seem to basically be a one-man operation in William Seaward with a few mates roped in.

Previous nomination was kept on the basis that there were a variety of sources for Seaward's article. However, I do not believe those reviews confer notability. The opening line of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe article states there were 2695 shows at the 2012 event. Masses of these get reviewed multiple times, even if they're pulling in crowds of about 10, as reviewers will have free passes, short walking distances and shows every hour for 16 hours a day. A show like Seaward's, done on a bouncy castle, is going to attract mainstream hacks sent to file 200 words on things that make the festival quirky.

Broken down, three articles are student drama society reviews, two links - 4 and 12 - simply mention the fact he was performing at the Fringe. Those that remain of refs 4-9 (three you can't access any more) are short reviews, with no suggestion of how well-attended his show was, and each point out it was a vaguely appealing but amateur production. I can't access ref 10 - although given it's 100 things at Edinburgh, I'd guess it's a brief mention covering the quirky angle, and 12 covers his Britain's Got Talent appearance, which doesn't confer notability. To summarise, if we believe that every act/company who has performed at Edinburgh is notable, we're opening Wikipedia up to masses of articles of very limited note. HornetMike (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete both as per nom. A burst of barely notable activity between 2006 and 2008 is less convincing given that there seems to have been nothing since then. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 23:08, 26 November 2013 (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/2013 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- The Strolling Theatricals seems to have been a shortlived two-man company, probably now defunct. If it was still going, I might possibly have voted to keep. Seaward appears to have done nothing else and is certainly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James McKinley Hargreaves

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

Reason

It was founded on the basis of a single unreliable source, and in its two years of existence there has been no discovery of anything sufficient to prove that he had the requisite five victories needed to satisfy the notability requirements to be a flying ace.Georgejdorner (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2013 (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/2013 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator's rationale is wholly erronious. The source in the article, Pusher Aces of World War 1, is, in fact, a reliable source. (See also WP:NOEFFORT.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep all articles on aces and he clearly was one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, subject also seems to have a section about him in: Oconnor, Mike (2002). Airfields and airmen: Somme. Leo Cooper. p. 128. ISBN 9780850528640. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) EricSerge (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article has at least one good source, and the subject matter (James McKinley Hargreaves), seems to have done some genuinely notable things. Easily meets WP:GNG. So, keep.Squareanimal (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Bonham Carter

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

Sole reason for article seems to be he's the brother of Helena Bonham Carter. In he's own right he's just a hedge fund manager and that doesn't meet notability criteria as I understand them HornetMike (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2013 (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/2013 November 27. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being profiled in pretty much every major UK national newspaper over the course of ten years meets the notability criteria as I understand them. At least one of these profiles doesn't even mention Helena, some don't mention her until the second, third or fourth paragraph. Some examples that aren't in the article: Independent interview, 2010, Guardian interview, 2010, Financial Times profile, 2007, Daily Telegraph, 2001. I also found reference to a Money Observer profile, not online. If I waded through the pages of results that come up in a Newsbank or Google Archives search, I'm sure I would find more. Moswento ^talky 14:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient for GNG and having famous relations does not disqualify. --AJHingston (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fantabulous misinterpretation of WP:NOTINHERITED which is WP:NOTPOLICY anyway. This does not say that "close relatives of famous persons cannot themselves be notable" or that "close relatives of famous persons have their notability diminished by being closely related to said famous person". The truth is that being closely related to someone famous gives you a little notability, although this is usually not enough for an article. Here's some directories [6] [7]. This is just utter nonsense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Jupiter is a major fund management group. As its CEO for the past 14 years, he is clearly notable in his own right. WP:NOTINHERITED is a good principle: subjects need to be notable in their own right; and he is. Relatives of notable people do not need a higher hurdle than others. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

International versions of Family Feud

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

WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:LINKFARM article of international versions of Family Feud. All versions that meet WP:N have their own article, and details for those without an individual article do not meet WP:V. WP:NOT 2.6 (not a directory) and 2.10 (not an indiscriminate collection of information). AldezD (talk) 02:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename to "List of...", and remove the versions without articles. Doesn't really fit anything above: doesn't really fit listcruft IMO, not a link farm as it's a list, definitely not indiscriminate, nor does it fit within the definition of "directory" that is discouraged. Ansh6 6 6 07:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This information would naturally belong on the main article Family Feud, but space reasons say breaking it out into a separate article is legitimate. Additionally, many of the entries are notable, and therefore it qualifies as a list of notable things that have a strong connection. I hardly see how this is indiscriminate, and it's relevant for discussing Family Feud as a format. Additionally, a show not having an article does not mean it fails WP:V - there is likely to be some information confirming the existence of each of these TV series even if they don't have in-depth critical comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A reasonable WP:SPINOUT of Family Feud that also meets WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Dilbert characters. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dilmom

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

Fails WP:GNG. No substantial sources which report on this comic strip character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dilbert characters or delete. Not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dilbert characters. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dilbert characters. The character has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to support a separate article. Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Blind (2013)

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless I'm mistaken, this is just a 5-minute YouTube clip. No sources to suggest even a hint of notability. Moswento ^talky 14:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just nothing out there. Given the limited coverage of the film, I'm leaned to believe that this was created by either one of the directors or someone that knows them. If this is so, then I don't want them to take this badly. It's just that films created for small film festivals or contests almost never gain enough coverage in WP:RS to be considered a notable film. Sometimes a rare instance can happen where a film will get this, but it's very rare and in most instances it comes after the director has achieved widespread success in other ventures. Even then that's not a guarantee. This just isn't there yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wow

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Would be an orphan if it weren't for Ojo Fatuo, which was also up for deletion, and also created by the same editor/single-use-account. -Haikon 13:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT - Delete. Not Notable. IndieNewsReview (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Great name, poor claim to notability. Lack of coverage in reliable sources. Moswento ^talky 14:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikimedia Foundation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Incubator

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. No independent (non-Wikimedia) source gives more than a sentence or two about this. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Wikimedia Foundation. Such as Meta-Wiki redirects to Wikimedia Foundation, I currently see no importance to this article until more sources could be found. I might change this to a Merge when more sources could be found and inserted into the page. ///EuroCarGT 01:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EuroCar. Doesn't meet GNG and is parallel to Meta-Wiki. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also note that the result of the previous AfD was to merge this with Wikimedia Foundation. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikimedia Foundation as per already established custom. Other sister projects should be created as redirects as well. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Russell (aviator)

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

Reason

Article lacks reliable source(s) to prove subject is a flying ace.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesnt "theaerodrome" listing five victories http://www.theaerodrome.com/aces/canada/russell.php provide a reliable source? MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There seems to be a consensus in the Assessment department that "theaerodrome" is not a reliable source because of its lack of a bibliography.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lack of sources in the article is not a valid reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing is a reason for deletion. "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition" GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you did not read the second sentence of the section you just cited: "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable"! User:The Bushranger's statement was entirely correct. It is not sourcing that indicates notability, but availability of sourcing. Lack of the former just indicates it has not yet been added, which is indeed not a reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I did read that and the following bit which says "...once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface". (The article has been in existence since 2009 but the majority of expansion was within the last two years by the nominating editor). GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure whether I support it or not, but we do generally have articles on all aces and it does appear he was. For consistency, we therefore either need to delete all of them or none of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: All World War I aces do NOT have article—only those who also received honors and/or awards.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which appears to be a rule you've made up yourself, given the requirements concerning awards under WP:SOLDIER. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I did make an editorial decision to apply the first requirement for notability from WP:ANYBIO to winnow out notable aces.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not sure why we are thinking of deleting this one. He has achieved the standard of 5 kills and, way before the Internet age, online sources were always going to be tough to find. Unless there is doubt abut key facts we should keep. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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