Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 January	15 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. It does have reference and seems to pass GNG, as pointed out below... -- Y not? 16:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Jeff Whittington

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

whilst the murder is unfortunate, I don't see how it meets WP:VICTIM or WP:EVENT. I also only found 1 hit on NZ Herald, NZ's biggest newspaper. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless it has some significance for future legislation, in which case it should be recreated.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I remember a bit of coverage at the time but I don't think this merits an article - SimonLyall (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there was coverage at the time, but there's been no on-going coverage or reference back to it. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's nothing significant about this case. Alexius08 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Certainly tragic, but seems non-notable. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A stage play was based on this event. There are quite a few news reports cited in the article including a recent one about one of the killers being paroled. Lack of coverage in the NZ Herald is probably due to the Herald being an Auckland paper and this being a Wellington event - in the same way that something notable that happened in Auckland may not get much of a mention in the Dominion. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Daveosaurus reasonings. and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

all murders receive spikes in coverage, you should know after participating in many murder AfDs that WP:EVENT trumps GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Checking stuff.co.nz which includes the local papers - The only for the last few years seems to be of one of the killers - Jason Meads who has been getting himself into trouble before and since his release, eg this and another crime in central Wellington that briefly mentioned it - SimonLyall (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Murders, even hate crimes like this one, are unfortunately not a rare occurrence. Unless there is something special about them, they are not notable and could at most be an entry in some list. This article, with its unnecessary "fascinating" details like the color of the victims hair and nail polish does not seem to fall in the "lasting influence" category. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the case and its aftermath has ongoing coverage - cited in various national and local media local (NZ) since 1999 to date.NealeFamily (talk) 22:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how much actual coverage since 1999? LibStar (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I think we have consensus that the content is good. Whether it belongs in a standalone article or in Campbell's article is an editorial decision to be discussed in the ordinary course. -- Y not? 16:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Whoppit

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

Non notable mascot, fails GNG, subject can be more than adequately covered in the article about the owner. both redirect and PROD contested by the creator so we get to have our jollies here.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment This was twice blanked, then PRODed with the untruthful rationale, "all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind". This is a rather obvious falsehood: of the 9 sources cited, one is to David Tremayne's biography (usually considered as a canonical text on Donald Campbell) and one to the Daily Telegraph. Even discounting the others, these two are very far from " absolutely non reliable" as claimed.

Accoridingly, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amongst other sources, appears in two robust books about Campbell and also coverage by the Daily Telegraph. When they covered a family dispute over Campbell's wreck crash, they saw fit to also cover the dispute about Mr Whoppit. Some of the other bear-fan sources are quite llightweight, but worth reading for the bear-focussed detail that some appreciate. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I see is a handful of passing mentions little reason for this to be split from the owners article. Ridernyc (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of unique content that can easily be summarised and merged in to the main Campbell article. DavidMichaelScott– talk 00:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-merge - whittle down and section it into Campbell's article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak merge~~ Weak keep - I am not sufficiently familiar with the TeddyBear-world to say whether or not this bear is a "star" within that community. The evidence of his notability so far is thin. But this is a notability issue, not a sourcing issue. There are certainly enough perfectly adequate sources for the bear's "biography" as it were, but we need evidence that Whoppit is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. Clearly there is enough for a section in the Campbell article. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The independent nature of Woppit is really on two grounds, separate from Campbell. He_(sic) existed beforehand as a character in a children's comic. This character was sufficiently popular for a bear maker to then produce a figure of the cartoon. If it were a pokemon or Disney, that would already be a shoo-in. Secondly, long after Campbell's death, Merrythought produced a commemorative bear, matching Campbell's differently clothed Mr Whoppit.

I'm not a bear afficionado either, although I have more interest in teddy bears than I do in baseball. Yet I can recognise that others interests are not mine and that WP:GNG is about measuring comment in other sources (which this topic meets, from sources around both bears and racing), not in whether or not it's a personal interest. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not about whether you or I are interested in Bears, but at the moment the article only quotes a few rather minor sources on Woppit rather than Whoppit (I am using the "h" to signify Campbell's personal bear, since that spelling distinction seems to be in the sources). I would be happy to change my mind if more evidence is brought forward. Paul B (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact having just done a google seearch for "woppit bear" and "whoppit bear" there seem to be a great many references to it, as both the original and the 1990s issue are clearly highly collectable [1]. However, I think it should be changed to Woppit or Whoppit, and the Campbell content should become a section. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are four bears:

Woppit (comic)
Woppit (1950s Merrythought bears)
Mr Whoppit (Campbell's own bear, with Bluebird patch and later flightsuit)
Mr Whoppit (Merrythought '90s repro, with jacket and Bluebird patch)

No "Whoppit", AFAIK, as the h and the Mr both came together, from Campbell. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly they are all interrelated, but since your case for stand-alone notability depends on all these bears being, as it were, essentially "one thing" in evolving different forms, I guess you go with WP:NAME. It happens that "mr whoppit" and "bear" gets 2,330 google results; "whoppit" and "bear" gets 24,600; "woppit" and "bear" gets 8,390. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Whoppit was commonly shortened to Whoppitt, and all of them were no doubt frequently mis-spelled (even "Blue Bird" and "Bluebird" are regularly mixed up). Those numbers though would seem to favour Mr Whoppit (as the correct form for the Campbell bear) over Woppit. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for a consolidated article about this bear in his various guises, as suggested by Paul B's analysis. Although it can be reasonably argued that this material is subsidiary to more clearly notable primary topics, I think there's too much worthwhile content here to fit into either Robin (magazine) or Donald Campbell, and splitting it up makes it difficult to understand the context (especially for someone like me who came into the AfD knowing very little about Campbell and nothing about Robin). --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Red Pen is now proceeding to blank content and sources, and edit-warring to enforce his viewpoint. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that you are edit warring attempting to include forum posts, blogspot, flikr, and blacklisted hubpages.com as sources under some bizarre notion sources dont need to be reliable? Someone who has been here as long a you should really know better. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit off-topic, TRPoD, but Andy Dingley has done this to me, reverting my edit on a completely-unsourced, long-established article, and adding a commercial, self-published 2000s highly-promotional website as the only source relating to a 1960s-era article - should really know better. Hence he's on my watch list.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this? Where I had the temerity to suggest that the Ace Cafe might know a thing or two about motorbikes? Now apart from harbouring grudges, do you have anything relevant to add here? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since the article itself is about the specific teddy bear mascot of Campbell, the sources for the other bears are immaterial. The sources for the Campbell bear (those that would qualify as WP:RS appear to be minor or passing mentions. There doesn't appear to be enough to sustain notability of this bear as a separate subject. --Eggishorn 01:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is the scope limited only to Campbell? The origins of the character are entirely relevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge a small para's worth of content to main article on wp:NOTINHERITED grounds. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit I did initially think teddy bear=not notable. However looking at the article, I see there are a number of different sources used which suggests to me that there is enough notability through coverage for it to pass GNG. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For notability purposes "Different sources" must have significant coverage of the subject, not just mentioning in some trivia fact. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions and unreliable sources. Not notable. Could be merged to the parent article if warranted. I'm not convinced that it is. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read Tremayne or Knowles? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mr Whoppit needs to be a major subtopic of Donald Campbell per Wikipedia:Summary style for there to be a stand alone article on the topic. None of the subsections in the Donald Campbell article are directed to Mr Whoppit, so the consensus of editors of the main article itself do not think Mr Whoppit is a major subtopic the Donald Campbell topic. The subject can be more than adequately covered in the article about Donald Campbell. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, specifically per Jreferee, and likewise earlier commenters; this doesn't need to be an article of its own. — Scott • talk 17:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent notability from the owner; not enough encyclopedic info for separate article. The current article is simply bloated with trivia ("found floating" "brought to the graveyeard"). Even the fact that it failed to be sold at an auction shows it is not notable (or widow got greedy; still does not increase the notability). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic has been covered extensively in numerous sources over many years. Just taking the books about famous teddy bears which feature this "celebrity bear", we have:

Christie's Century of Teddy Bears
Collectable Teddy Bears
Collecting Teddy Bears
Teddy Bears: A Celebration in Words and Paintings
Teddy Bears: a guide to their history, collecting, and care
The Little Book of Celebrity Bears
The Teddy Bear Book

On top of this, there's a stack of books about Campbell, the Robin and numerous articles in newspapers and periodicals, including reputable broadsheets like The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. The nomination and delete votes are defective in that they seem to suppose that deletion is appropriate for a merger. This is false as explained at WP:MAD. Instead, our editing policy applies and so deletion is quite inappropriate. Andrew (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Andy Dingley makes a good case, as does Andrew Davidson. Reliable sources do give significant coverage of this item. Dream Focus 15:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Y not? 16:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PonyKart

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

Heard of this game on various brony sources (Equestria Daily, etc), but it hasn't achieved any mainstream attention and fails WP:GNG. It doesn't help that the team developing this game has left the project for dead. Citation Needed | Talk 23:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT– "especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." (WP:Permastub) DavidMichaelScott– talk 01:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable fan game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. no verifiable content to preserve either. PROD would have probably done it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Y not? 16:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shadi Toloui-Wallace

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

Using the Wikipedia guidelines for music notability, Shadi Toloui-Wallace has neither been the subject of press attention, had a single on any country's music chart or is signed to a major record label.--Guiletheme (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find sources to support notability. I thought that there were two, but they were only cursory discussions about the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Encarnacion Montero

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

I consider myself an inclusionist on wikipedia, but I just can't believe this young man - who has a couple of small credits in some shorts films and TV shows - is notable at present. Google News archive finds exactly nothing on his name. --Loeba (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He is best known for her..? Anyway, toosoon or notyet--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google News archive is closed. Christian75 (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Colombia relations

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

these relations do not have features that typically make a notable bilateral relations article. neither country has embassies, there has been no visits by leaders, no significant trade or migration, and the only agreement seems to be a visa waiver. the sources cite the typical "wanting to co-operate" rather than evidence of co-operation. LibStar (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept according to Wikipedia's General notability guideline since the references in the article are from reliable, secondary sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd keep the article if there was evidence of actual cooperation and trade. What sources are available? Bearian (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The bilateral trade between the two countries is growing fast and registered 30% annual increase in June, 2013. This is the link = [2]. Nomian (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the level of trade is coming off a very low base of USD10M. In reality, trade grew by a minute $3M. Many large companies trade that in a day. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per WP:GNG. --Zayeem ^(talk) 12:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:N per sources in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment most of the sources confirm very limited interaction rather than actual relations. Is there any coverage of this relationship in colombia? I searched Colombia's biggest newspaper El Tiempo (Colombia) and almost all coverage of Bangladesh is about its natural disasters. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing written like the sources must be from various country to establish notability. The references I have put into the article are from reliable sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bilateral means 2 way. It seems as though Colombians don't really report these relations. LibStar (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. It does not matter the economic etc. size of the relation, or the actual cooperation agreements: only the sources coverage matters. Which is enough for our standards. --cyclopia ^speak! 00:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

so 4 sources including 3 from the same newspaper is our minimum standard? LibStar (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete -- Y not? 16:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valmir Nafiu

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

Mr. Nafiu has still not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage in reliable sources, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league which means he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for footballers, WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails the general notability guideline, as the subject hasn't received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete though if anybody wants to redirect it anywhere, feel free. Nick (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary of London

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

appears to be original research Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Recounts information of English placename meanings which are (one would figure) true of any of the larger cities, or perhaps any British city at all. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a glorified partial duplicate of London (disambiguation). הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - covered or could be expanded within the London article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and per Loriendrew. --Dэя-Бøяg 05:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicates part of London (disambiguation). Also, the linked articles are not actually about the boundaries of London but are about various entities called London. So they don't belong under this title and instead belong under "London". --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure why a duplicate dab was created. WP:FORK? Bearian (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had been thinking about how there are many ways to define where the area people know as "London" starts and ends, and I just wanted to aggregate all (or at least some) of them into one article. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 06:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a topic for coverage in London or Geography of London; it is not an ambiguous concept, per WP:DABCONCEPT. bd2412 T 15:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. There is scope for encyclopaedic coverage of the various definitions of London are (not all of which are listed here - M25, London commuter region, travelcard zones 1-6, etc. are missing), but that belongs as additional prose at London#Scope or a new section at Geography of London. The list just unnecessarily duplicates London (disambiguation) Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ognjen Šinik

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why he don't play in fully pro league??? He play very many mathces in first's league!!!--Region190 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A referenced list of leagues considered fully professional (i.e. not just leagues that contain a number of professional clubs) can be found here. None of the clubs that he is said to have made an appearance play in leagues outlined here. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league which means he doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for footballers, WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails the general notability guideline, as the subject hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Mentoz (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Paku

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL which is less stringent than WP:GNG. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Marks

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Might be worth a section in Howard Marks but little worth adding. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - single non-notable memoir, fails WP:AUTHOR and any notability comes from relation to notable figure, so fails WP:BIO.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manic Opera

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

Couldn't establish WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. External links seem to be for Australian metal band rather than New Zealand acappella comedic band. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Various articles on NZ web sites, but nothing that makes them particularly notable. There is an Aussie metal band with the same name. NealeFamily (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2013 in literature. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in Australian literature

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

Only 2 entries throughout the year; better to get the entries merge in 2013 in literature Awards section. Ninney (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about merge into (or create) 2010s in Australian literature instead? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me Refer List of years in Australian literature Which lists a link from 2003 to 2009 as good listing pages. Your suggestion of merging enteries from 2010 to 2019 as 2010s in Australian literature sounds feasible. I am OK with whatever is appropriate, Hoping for more opinions on the subject matter. Thanks User:Lugnuts - Ninney (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 December 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, Courcelles 19:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Please stop discussing here separately, instead lets discuss jointly in similiar article - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature~~ - Ninney (talk) 15:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: As per discussion result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature, the result was merge to 2011 in literature. Likewise, can we have similiar consensus on 2012 in Australian literature & 2013 in Australian literature? - Ninney (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to new article 2010s in Australian literature. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 in Australian literature concluded rather vaguely with the suggestion of merging, but it left the merge target open. I think having a specific article for Australian literature is better than losing it in a worldwide article, but I appreciate that others may feel differently. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2013 in literature, as per Ninney, modelled on 2011 in literature. No apparent good reason that recent literature review articles should be divided by nation. Yes, the YYYY in literature series needs work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to PetroChina. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of PetroChina

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

No indication of significance of this page as company already exists here Itsalleasy (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should this information be deleted as opposed to transcluded onto the PetroChina page? QatarStarsLeague (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with PetroChina and redirect it to a relevant section. Alexius08 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Behringer. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bugera

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 18:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,--Re-Write--and Merge to parent company Behringer. These amps are sold by every major guitar equipment retailer, which I know does not establish notability in and of itself, but there should be quite a bit of coverage of their products in guitar-related publications. I'll do some checking on this and add references if possible. I think that Music Group (company) should also be merged to the Behringer article as it is no more than an umbrella for this family of companies. I feel like a tourist (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I moved this AFD from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugera, where it had been appended to the first AFD. I've also dated a comment and completed the listing process. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death of abbas khan

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

Unreferenced article of the death of a person, possibly fictional, without a Wikipedia article smileguy91^talk 20:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as no claim of importance under CSD-A7. --Nlu (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Claim of significance is overshadowed by notability. I had no difficulty finding dozens of reliable sources. - Mr X 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 20:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Death which has been heavily covered in the media and is developing into a major international incident. Definitely notable. Terrible article though. Needs serious work. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and re-write. Bad article not non-notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CSD-A7 does not apply, and he is not fictitious. This is simply WP:NOTNEWS. It is a tragic case, but do we need an article for the death of every foreigner in a civil war. The Dr visited a war zone, was arrested, and died in prison. This is not notable by wikipedia standards. This is unlikely to have a WP:LASTING effect.Martin451 00:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hardly "died in prison": killed is the word. Although possibly WP:TOOSOON, there has been a great deal of heavyweight coverage of this incident been a lot of heavyweight coverage of this incident, and I believe that the likely diplomatic rpercussions will be significant. That it is an apalling article is neither here nor there.TheLongTone (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at least for the moment. If the claims about him are correct, this is a notroious case of murder by a state entity in Syria. There will be an inquest, which will no dount be well reported, as this is a high-profile case in the British media. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS. Just because he was British doesn't make the subject notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There have been in-depth investigative reports by PBS and other media over a significant time period; this is not a run of the mill case. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely high profile, notable event. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMaps

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

Completing on behalf of anon:

I am nominating this article for deletion, per the helpful suggestion of User:Jehochman. It fails the test of A7 - No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events), and the subject has apparently never been mentioned in any newspaper, ever. The Wikipedia community has taken over 8 years to work on this stub, yet it remains unimportant and unsourced. - 2001:558:1400:10:D4BF:9258:EE2F:4F9A (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC) NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. Seems like this project is still vibrant (they had a talk at Wikimania in Hong Kong last year: [3]), but there's no evidence this project has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. This group is something that is currently and sufficiently represented at Commons:Wikimaps. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to the relevant page on Commons, perhaps? I concur that there isn't enough for notability. Ansh6 6 6 21:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to commons:Commons:Wikimaps. It is a shame that this has not gotten more press; I cannot find RS sufficient to pass notability either. However, the project exists and "WikiMaps" is a plausible search term, so a redirect to the WikiMaps page on the commons is warranted. Because redirects outside of mainspace are subject to deletion (see WP:R#DELETE), I'm explicitly suggesting to ignore the rules (see WP:IAR) in this case. --Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Commons:Wikimaps per above Mark's suggestion. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 16:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. IMO, mainspace is not for redirects to our non-notable projects. Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Soft redirect is only 60 pages long, and most of those list to 'content' pages on a sister project; only a few link to a project page on another project. A search of Wikipedia shows that 'Wikimaps' on Wikipedia may also refer to 'Wikimapia' and we also use http://wiki-maps.com/ . This page means it is not easy to search on this term, because this page is shown instead of the search results with other possibilities. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We could also convert it into a disambiguation page, I guess. Ansh6 6 6 19:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the Wikipedia WikiMaps tool notable enough to list on a dab page? If not, we could put a WP:SELFREF on a dab page, or redirect WikiMaps to another page and put a selfref on that? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Obviously non-notable. It'd be ridiculous to redirect this to the project itself, which is not a Wikipedia page. That is, per John Vandenberg.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As above it's not yet notable. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The notion in the nomination that no reliable third party references are available has been countered in User:Michig's rationale, and the notion that the group fails various elements of WP:NMUSIC has also been countered by User:Michig's and User:Qwfp's rationales. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Woods Band

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

No indication of significance and no reliable third party references available Itsalleasy (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no question it fails Wp:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passess WP:NMUSIC via multiple notable members and multiple significant coverage, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Michig (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND#6, "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians", and per Michig's multiple reliable sources in Google Books. Qwfp (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dishwalla. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Fox (musician)

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

No indication of significance and no reliable third party references available. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Dishwalla, as he himself is not notable, but his band certainly is. Jinkinson talk to me 18:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dishwalla as suggested, subject to re-creation later. He does not appear to have any independent notability, and sources would to be difficult to find, because his name is so common. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. per WP:G12, copyvio. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antoni Vila Casas

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

No indication of significance and no reliable third party references available Itsalleasy (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Afternoon

Antoni Vila Casas should not be deleted, is a public person in Catalonia, winner of several disctintions:

Antoni Vila Casas. Winner of the Montblanc Award for Culture
Antoni Vila Casas. Winner of the Peix Fregit Award for heritage conservation for Can Mario Museum
Gran Creu de l’ordre del Mèrit Civil in 1996
the Creu de Sant Jordi in 1999
Premi Consell Nacional de la Cultura i les Arts (CONCA) al patrimoni cultural in 2009

He is one of the most important art collectors of Spain and,I can point several newspapers with interviews and articles about his achievements, collecting and promoting catalan art, taking great satisfaction in helping his country by rehabilitating buildings that are emblematic of Catalonia and Catalan traditions and turning them into museums for contemporary art.

Thank you very much and if you need references, please feel free for asking me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanrague (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but... The reasons for the nomination are disputable. The article already cited one reliable third party reference - an article in El Pais - when it was nominated, and the article's details of the various honours and awards he has won and his activities as a patron and promoter of the arts amount to an assertion of significance. However, the article is very clearly over-promotional, and the fact that its creator's only activity over three versions of Wikipedia (this one, Catalan and Spanish) has been creating and expanding articles directly related to the Fundació Vila Casas strongly suggests some connection with the Fundació and thus a conflict of interest. The best thing to do with the article would probably be to replace the text entirely with information drawn from the Catalan Wikipedia article, though keeping the three references cited in the middle paragraph, these being from the El Pais article I have already mentioned and from the awarders of two of his other honours (none of which currently seem to be cited in the Catalan article) - which are definitely primary but can be taken as reliable regarding the respective awards. PWilkinson (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No views on the notability of the subject, but it appears to be a wholesale copyright violation from here. I haven't yet blanked the article as it is listed here, but the copyright issue needs to be resolved.--Kateshortforbob _talk 20:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 11:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

E-Health Records International Inc.

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

No indication of significance and no reliable third party references available Itsalleasy (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: References are typical start-up coverage, as is available coverage of its products; insufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands, looks like and WP:ADVERT. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sounds like spam. Alexius08 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus is clearly keep--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LIFX

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

Article does not meet WP:NCORP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it does. It's my first article creation, but I checked on notability before writing about it. WP:NCORP says "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Just look at the references in the article, they're all significant and in reliable secondary sources. WesterlyRider (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LIFX is quite notable; there are dozens of independent sources with considerable coverage. --CyberXRef^talk 18:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include [12], [13], [14]. See also: WP:BEFORE, section D. Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satabdi

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

I dislike nominating non-US/UK artist articles for deletion unless there's a very good reason, but this article about an alleged Indian artist sets off all sorts of alarm bells. It almost seems like the claims are made up! I can't find any trace of Art Magazine or the Elephanta Award or Ambrosia Award, while there is a Sri Kala Niketan Cultural Award but no evidence Satabdi won it. Because she soesn't give a fuller name, it's difficult to search meaningfully for info about her online. I can only assume the whole article is an exagerated (if not made-up) promotional profile. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. I found a HighBeam article about her and it sounds as if art is a sideline - she's an actor and director. I'm not finding anything else about painting. She seems to have some sort of a following and appears on blogs about her art - but I'm not finding another reliable source.--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - another option is to retain the article, but rewrite it to include her acting and directing work.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the news article proves she exists, but is she notable for anything? I don't have access to Highbeam so don't know what the article says about her. Sionk (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 14. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 17:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the highbeam article is about a different person, Satabdi Roy (compare the birthdates). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Halachic state

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

This page was created back in 2007 by a user who disappeared soon after. It's had very few edits, and even those haven't supplied the article with any sources. Not that are any. This is a polemic written by one person and has nothing to do with anything real. There's been an edit or two each year for the past few years, in most cases just to remove one of the more ridiculous claims in the article. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 16:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

redirect? I get a lot of book hits but none of them talk about the subject at length. I have to think there's someplace in articles on Zionism or the like where this can be pointed but I don't see the material to write an article per se. Mangoe (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the guy who started this is like a lot of people I know. Every time Israel does something that isn't 100% secular, or there are coalition discussions where the religious parties flex their muscle, some people start crying Halakhic state. It's like "the sky is falling". It isn't really a thing. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we have an article on Chicken Little, even if we don't have a discussion there of whether the sky is falling. Isn't there some place where we explain what the phrase means? Mangoe (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards redirect to Halakha. There are certainly references[15][16][17][18], but they tend to assume people know what the phrase means (I guess it's fairly obvious if you know what Halakha means). I'd say this could be treated in the article Halakha; with a little more sourcing it could be merged. Redirecting might encourage people to add info to Halakha. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is on a conceptual Jewish state. It might be what certain orthodox Jews would refer. However Halakha seems to be a law code (I also did not know what it meant). That is something slightly different. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because: 1 This is an important "Jewish" counterpart of the topic about an Islamic state that is part of a very serious debate within politics about the role and goals of religion and Jewish Law aka halacha in the Jewish state of Israel's internal affairs (it helps to explain what underlies the controversy and the goals -- from a religious POV -- relating to much of Israel's Law of Return and issues relating to Who is a Jew? are about), but even more, it is a genuinely encyclopedia topic of what the religious goals of Jewish groups are (as Islamic law would be for Muslims), and it cannot be ignored or wished away. 2 This is an important topic within the context of the Haredim and Religious Zionists in Israel versus the secular side that opposes it. That an article has been relatively "dormant" on WP and its creator is now gone does not "devalue" it, on the contrary the fact that so many editors have seen fit to work on it and keep it is testimony to its enduring current importance since 2007 [19]. 3 It is an important concept, notion and political idea of religious origins/goals that underlies what Orthodox Jews in Israel are working to achieve and what the secular forces are trying to prevent. Sure, the article can use more of a WP:NPOV but the topic is very WP:NOTABLE and there are plenty of WP:RS that prove that it is 100% WP:V that basic googling reveals see "halachic state" (with a "c") and "halachik state" (with a "k"). 4 Thus see such articles as: i At Home Abroad; People Of The Law? (Anthony Lewis writing in the New York Times, 1999: "'Deep down,' said Mordechai Kremnitzer, professor of law at Hebrew University, 'many, though not all, want a halachik state'"; ii Barkat meets with haredi councilmen over parking lot fiasco (Ynetnews, the online division of Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, 1999: "If the latter is true than why are they calling for a Halachik state? The parking lot is NOT in their neighborhood."); iii Religious Affairs: Whose Afraid of a halachic state? (report in the prestigious Jerusalem Post, 2009); iv The Kingdom of Judea vs. the State of Israel (The Forward: "The time has come to establish a Halachic state in Judea and Samaria! It is time for the 'Kingdom of Judea!' The mind reels...", 2008); Here's a comprehensive presentation of the topic, 2003: Op-Ed: A Halachic State Arutz Sheva/Israel National News, a media source that speaks for Religious Zionism: "The simple acknowledgment that we should be a halachic state will be music to HaShem's [ God's ] ears..."; and quite a few well-sourced articles, op eds and discourse on this important topic that simple googling uncovers. v Furthermore, just by utilizing WP's features right here on this page, one can discover serious works of scholarship that refer to this topic: "books" yields 266 book sources and "scholar" yields 50 scholarly sources. Efforts should go into incorporating all these into the article, and not into looking for excuses to delete that seem to border on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. IZAK (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term is mentioned frequently in Israeli public discourse vis a vis the relation between religion and state. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article describes a very real phenomenon, either as an aspirational goal or a feared destination, depending on one's perspective in the Israeli religious / secular divide. The available reliable and verifiable sources support the existence of an article about the concept. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Shuki . --Yoavd (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Dumping Ground (series 1). Stifle (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Home Alone (The Dumping Ground)

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

We have all this info on The Dumping Ground (series 1) and IMHO we don't need to duplicate what's already in great detail above. -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Liberty in the DG

Baby (The Dumping Ground)

S.O.S. (The Dumping Ground) ‎

-Davey2010 16:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many drama series would follow this format - with a separate article for each episode. As a watcher of the show, there is a huge amount of detail which could be attributed per episode as there are numerous points to the plots. It's just got to be included. I've decided to merge the series 1 & 2 pages into the episode list anyway. There could be a small amount of detail in the episode list page, but more detail on the individual pages. The only issue would be finding sources. Emirates123 (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Surely it's better to have series' instead ?, Look at List of Waterloo Road episodes, List of Top Gear episodes, List of Misfits episodes, Not one episode article in sight, To sift through eps would take forever whereas all in series' is alot more helpful to the reader & quicker to find. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you'd argue that for shows like Waterloo Road, Top Gear, there isn't a large amount of happenings in the episodes which are really worth writing a large paragraph about anyway. Comedies (Only Fools and Horses for example) have individual articles. Yes, Dumping Ground isn't as popular, but with Only Fools, I find it easy to go through the page and find an episode article. Probably because the template is there and clear to read. I think with separate series articles, it will get a bit messy like it was before I re-directed them. I say brief description on the 'List of episodes' page and full synopsis on main episode page. I think with a bit of general clean-up (references, a screencap/image for the episode) it would work. Emirates123 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to The Dumping Ground (series 1) - I'm sorry, but this is just a common-or-garden TV show, and none of the episodes have any lasting, or external, notability. If an episode won a major award, or makes a significant contribution to culture, then we could look at those individual episodes having articles. At present, the episodes will fail WP:GNG as all of their coverage in WP:RS is primary. Simply put, this TV show is not big enough to justify individual episode articles either; comparing it to Only Fools and Horses is like comparing the Queen to a baby born a month ago in Birmingham, and, as such, that is an absolutely bizarre comparison to make. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as above. Lack of secondary research indicates a lack of notability as per WP:GNG. DavidMichaelScott– talk 01:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as above; as I said in an equivalent nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Dumping Ground guest characters this entire series has a terrible mess of articles that should all be merged to the main one, though that one needs a whole lotta WP:TNT itself because of very fine inane detail (not for decision here, but seriously needed). Nate • (chatter) 20:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Godz (Ohio band)

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

Unreferenced article appears to be original research written by the band or someone close to them. Notability is questionable, most if not all of the article is unverifiable. If notability/verifiability is established, a complete re-write will be necessary for style, tone, content, and references I feel like a tourist (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NO proof of nobility under WP:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note if this article is being considered for deletion so should this template.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

another note it looks like they also have this page: The Godz (album) which should also be deleted (unless the band is determined to be notable, in which case, it could be merged)I feel like a tourist (talk)

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia Normandy

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

Unreleased product, not officially confirmed, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." ViperSnake151 Talk 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The phone is universally recognised by the media to be under development, and the images of the working device on the internet are anecdotal proof of this. The article has existed here for over a month and is a topic of growing interest in the media, with over 8,770,000 results on Google.

Following the advice on that page, I'll merge the article with the Normandy section on the Nokia article once the AfD is closed if needed. --RaviC (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the same reasoning as described by RaviC. Additionally, the above mentioned WP:CRYSTALBALL guideline states this: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. Obviously, this article contains more than enough good references.

Also, it seems that the final fate of this device is going to become known in February this year, and at that time this article either becomes a "true" one, or it becomes merged into Nokia § Android - The Normandy Project section. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk) 22:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just for everyone's information, the article gained a whopping 6169 views yesterday alone, which was greater than the views for the iPhone 5S, Galaxy S4, Nexus 5, Moto X, HTC One, Lumia 1020, LG G2 and Lumia 520 - making it [one of] the most viewed smartphone articles. There's no greater metric of interest and relevance than that! --RaviC (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per above, and per the fact that it seems to be a very heavily discussed topic in reliable online publications Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamasiab Dam

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

Small dam which does not meet WP:GNG. As been tagged for notability since April 2010; however, no improvements were made for establishing notability. No English search results, except different wikies based on this page. There may be more deep coverage in Farsi, but no sign of it. Beagel (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quick google search gave me nothing fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Elton John. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renate Blauel

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

Is Renate Blauel notable for anything beyond having once been Elton John's wife? I really can't see anything that makes her stand out on her own merits. Mabalu (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Read about her on the front page of readit once however that doesn't override WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elton John. She was a non-notable sound engineer when they met, and doesn't seem to have done anything major since they split. No independent success. And appearing on the front page of reddit doesn't change that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This story seems to confirm her subsequent life of obscurity. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elton John, as suggested. She was very private, and has remained so, except for her wedding day(s). Bearian (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deepspace5

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

Non-notable artist with no verifiable references. References listed are dead links and one music database. I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artical no question fails WP:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick search for sources. CCM Magazine refers to them in a review of one of the albums as "legendary underground collective DS5". There is an Allmusic biography (which is usually a fairly good indication of notability) and an album review. Exclaim! magazine also has an album review. There is also coverage in the All Music Guide to Hip-hop: The Definitive Guide to Rap & Hip-hop [20]. Already that's getting close to meeting WP:NMUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Enough coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG as indicated by Paul Erik. Also meets point 1 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO, 5 due to releasing an album on Gotee Records/EMI Christian Music Group and one on Tooth & Nail Records. STATic message me! 03:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep I don't like the band, but they meet MUSICBIO as explained above. The article simply needs to be improved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Pride (hip hop group)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable hip hop group I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — A disbanded group that did nothing of significance during their time as a group. Fails WP:GNG. STATic message me! 03:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Additionally, the article is no longer an unsourced BLP at this time. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Redford (actor)

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 14:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no reason to keep an unsourced BLP.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial roles including 105 episodes of Coronation Street as Keith Appleyard; co-wrote and starred in A Dish of Tea With Doctor Johnson which received many favourable reviews in British press[21][22][23][24][25]; in EastEnders as Ken Raynor; major role in Moon and Son; acclaimed performance as Creon in Antigone[26][27][28][29][30]; other roles in older shows e.g. starring in Bread or Blood (1981)[31][32] which doesn't have a wikipedia page but is probably notable[33][34][35] In other words, meets WP:NACTOR #1. Amazing what you can learn from a simple web search! --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is something of a promotional tone here, and I have adjusted down the award nomination to a specific referenced item, but that is a matter for normal editing; basically enough here in the subject's career and the available references to indicate notability. AllyD (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colapeninsula and WP:HEY; however, we still have to get rid of the hyperbole, including the entertaining but presumably unprovable claim that he has appeared in "every theatre in England". --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References show notability. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portfolios with Purpose

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

unimportant charity that has managed to get a good deal of its press releases published. This is one of them. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand how one's opinion that it is an "unimportant charity" has to do with the deletion policy. The article is well cited and is a functional organization.A2citrix (talk) 14:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The public has a right to information on any charity they wish to research. Each individual can decide if it is important or not, based on their own standards. Every charity has a right to post information to the public. Portfolios with Purpose is an amazing organization that I personally want to see thrive. I'm sure many others agree. I can also say the people behind this charity are upstanding and amazing individuals. Furthermore, I recommend this deletion request for deletion due to poor spelling and grammar and improper use of personal opinions. Although I doubt that is possible, unfortunately. Wheresarnie (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Wheresarnie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N, not every charity has the "right" to a Wikipedia entry. The rest of your argument is irrelevant. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Having checked the sources, I find that only Forbes and pionline can truly be regarded as independent. The latter is a news website "media of limited interest and circulation". QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If additional mass-media sources are cited is that sufficient to retain the article? A2citrix (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depends; see WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH for details, but the gist is that you need in-depth coverage by multiple, independent sources. So if you find two news sites/papers that produced an article based on the same press release, than they don't help. But multiple interviews like the Forbes one are more likely to confer notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. I would much rather the bias be toward the retaining the article and fixing it than to find a reason to delete it. A2citrix (talk) 17:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have added additional citations and more recent non-press release information from Bloomberg, CNBC, Wall Street Journal A2citrix (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote retracted; I'll leave it to others to decide. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:32, 25 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 02:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Macklemore & Ryan Lewis

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

I don't see the purpose of having this article whatsoever. It's practically a disambiguation page directing people to Macklemore and Ryan Lewis. There's no reason that any song that these two have collaborated on should be referenced as being "by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis" instead of "by Macklemore and Ryan Lewis". The fact that they claim that they are a duo doesn't match with the existing practice on Wikipedia that treats the two separately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment These guys are big enough that separate articles could be justified if macklemore and ryan lewis were simply biographical articles about the individual people while macklemore & ryan lewis focused on the group. Much like having an article on the the jonas brothers but then having separate articles for each individual brother.I feel like a tourist (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The separate articles are justified. This "duo" article is not.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
week keep This article does meet WP:GNG so i see no reason to delete it but it is badly written so it wouldn't be the end of the world if it was deleted.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no coverage of them as a duo, and that concept does not meet WP:GNG. They meet it separately, but not together, because they are always discussed separately. That is why there is no need for this disambiguation page with references.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These sources Beg to differ 1 2 3. With the duo Nominated for grammys and ranked on many national music chart. they make WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Macklemore and Ryan Lewis are notable separately. There is nothing out there that supports an article like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If what you are saying is true about the duo why don't we Delete the article about the Wright brothers or Ben & Jerry's. Duos are famous and can be notable. one more thing many people think of this duo as one so we need some sort of disambiguation page and this article serves that purpose.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Orville and Wilbur Wright do not have individual articles. Ben & Jerry's is an article on a company and not its founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield. And your argument reeks of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article titled "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis" serves no purpose. Most people attribute the performance to Mr. Haggerty, while Mr. Lewis is indeed referenced, that does not mean there needs to be an article with both of their names in the title, particularly when it seems nothing can be said about them other than the fact that they work together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this line of reasoning, Ryulong. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis released a platinum selling album together. How can it be argued that they're not notable for working together? Anytime an artist sells into the millions, there's always significant coverage. What in the world are you using for search terms if you're not finding info on this? Sergecross73 msg me 15:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there is no reason to have such a short article on this duo when they are barely ever critically recognized as one. There is so much coverage on them individually at Macklemore and Ryan Lewis that this short article that gives absolutely zero context which simply exists as a stepping stone from people linking to Macklemore & Ryan Lewis serves no purpose on this project. The article says nothing. It's just a half-assed disambiguation page being treated as a proper article and neither are necessary for discussion of the subject. It doesn't matter if the two are individually notable. We don't need this page to describe their collaborations at all, particularly when there is zero content on it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe there's nothing to be said, but if there really isn't, why not just clean up up/convert it to a legit disambiguation page? Its certainly a legitimate search term. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing to disambiguate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This joint page serves a great utility for our readers as some materials are as a duo, some others are uniquely to Macklemore in collaboration with some other artist and some uniquely to Ryan Lewis. Many will search under this joint title (after all they are notoriously known as a duo with some) and it will conveniently lead to both articles. werldwayd (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So this is effectively a disambiguation page? Why do we need to make the link "[[Macklemore & Ryan Lewis]]" instead of "[[Macklemore]] & [[Ryan Lewis]]"?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there is concensus, I have nothing against the page becoming a disambiguation page without any references appearing. Of course a redirect of our choice to either artist will not do. We need two lines, each linking to this or that artist. In such a case, I have no objection. werldwayd (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there's nothing to disambiguate. This page serves no purpose.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering this is the cover of their platinum selling album. That alone is going to lead to plenty of coverage. Certainly a plausible search term. Even if only a redirect. Shouldn't be deleted though. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note this EP werldwayd (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the reasoning for Keep but the only real reason for keeping the page is because of their collaboration on The Heist and the singles released from it– Which isn't protocol on WP for other high profile hip-hop/rap collaborations eg. Jay-Z & Kanye West for Watch the Throne and "Otis", "Niggas in Paris" etc. so seems pretty redundant. DavidMichaelScott– talk 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and even with the "VS EP" it's treating the two artists separately and it's not even the same way that they refer to them on the Heist. There is nothing on this "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis" page. Period. Anything that even remotely discusses their collaboration is probably much better treated on their separate articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Macklemore and Lewis are clearly notable, but as a duo they are not. The sources are about them, not as a duo. Also, where the heck would this redirect to? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 03:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They released a platinum selling album as duo - how are they not notable as a duo? If the sources currently there aren't sufficient, that's fine, but a release of this capacity certainly garners plenty of coverage that could be found. These judgments are to be made about what info is out there, not just what's currently in the article. Platinum selling collaborations are just about always going to be able to garner up enough coverage to meet the WP:GNG. (Disclosure - I don't like these artists at all, but I can certainly recognize that the world can't seem to stop talking about these guys.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't reported on as a duo because they have work that precedes their collaboration.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's just blatantly false. Why in the world would they only cover them separately when they did the album together? If that's how it worked, no supergroup (music) articles would exist, because they'd be "redundant". Its quite the opposite, usually these "supergroup" types are easy "homeruns" when it comes to notability. Your whole stance flies directly contrary to WP:BAND point #6. Sergecross73 msg me 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These two performers are not in a band together. They are two independently notable artists who have collaborated on a single major release album together, much like Jay-Z and Kanye West did.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're splitting hairs. They're very much so an musical ensemble, which is covered by WP:BAND. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They are more like Jay Z and Kanye working on Watch the Throne than they are Simon & Garfunkel. And no one has written anything about them as a "band" on Wikipedia because everyone but werldwayd sees fit to discuss them separately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A small sample of the huge amount of coverage they receive as a duo, to dispell the ridiculous notion that they aren't covered as a duo:
I mean, seriously, we're talking about all over the place, including the highest level, indisputably reliable sources here. The article needs help, sure, but AFD is not clean up. It clearly meets our notability standards. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This still isn't the reason I sent it to AFD. We have no purpose for this page as a search item or a "disambiguation". And people seem to prefer to discuss the two on their separate pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if notability isn't the issue, and it doesn't fall anywhere under WP:NOT, "no purpose" strikes me as a really lazy/sloppy/poor nomination. Your lack of ability to envision the purpose of an article isn't a valid deletion reason. Sergecross73 msg me 04:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Seriously, what a extreme failure of WP:BEFORE. Neither of them were even notable enough for Wikipedia articles (especially Lewis), until they started collaborating as a duo. If anything they are covered more as a duo, then they are as solo artists. The page in its current form (as a dab), is just fine. They clearly pass WP:MUSICBIO and its really no question about it.STATic message me! 19:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability or lack thereof is not the reason this page was proposed for deletion. This page serves no purpose on this project because there is no need to use [[Macklemore & Ryan Lewis]] as a link rather than linking to their names separately. Unless there are plans to merge the pages in the future, we just don't need this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, we do not link to this page. However, is it not a very likely search term? It has been viewed 24,129 in the last 90 days even though it is linked unnecessarily on a few pages. I am certain if it was deleted it would be a mainstay at the top of the WP:TOPRED and be recreated. The comparison to Kanye x Jay-Z is very very very off. That was a collaboration between two solo artists, this is a duo consisting of a MC and producer, such as Gang Starr and Pete Rock & CL Smooth were before them. STATic message me! 21:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it is a very good search term because you get "Macklemore" as a result before you would "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis" and I doubt it will be super linked to (it's not taking much work to remove the internal links while treating it as a dab page).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-clearly notable.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't what's being called into question here. It's utility of this particular article in the grand scheme of things on Wikipedia. Have you even bothered to look at the page? It's three lines, two of which are just links to the other pages.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Since when do we use AfD to cleanup poorly written articles? There are other duous on wikipedia who have articles on the partnership as well as singularly. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:41, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's poorly written the page just serves no purpose. Macklemore released music before his collaboration with Ryan Lewis and this page has not changed one bit over the past year it has existed, and people seem to be spending more time and energy in the musicians' separate pages than any barely linked to (even before I treated it as a dab page) combination of their names. It is a disambiguation page when there's nothing to disambiguate. It does not need to exist.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Is it useful? Yes. Its a reasonable search term.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. You get "Macklemore" in the search bar before you get "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you get this page as the second google result for "Macklemore & Ryan Lewis". I win. Seriously, if we are debating at this level, its a waste of time to argue for deletion as long as its a plausible search term.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masato Kobayashi (fighter)

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

Unsourced non-notable MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with no top tier fights.Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage and doesn't have any top tier fights, so he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Kugel

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

Non-notable both as an ice hockey player and MMA fighter. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One fight doesn't meet WP:NMMA and he doesn't meet WP:NHOCKEY either.Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

20-Mule Team Delete: If the MMA federation for which he fought his only bout isn't notable enough to have its own article, that certainly confers no notability to the subject. Given that the subject only played 50 organized hockey matches, the notion that he's "best known for being an enforcer while playing for the Windsor Spitfires" is ludicrous -- I rather doubt that anyone in hockey remembers the subject at all. Especially since the article was created four years ago, long before the MMA bout, I have such serious doubt about the competence of the creator that it'd be worth it to review his new article creation history. Ravenswing 05:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say people don't remember him. The video of him chasing that poor little guy around the ice was pretty memorable. I can even remember them interviewing Golicic's horrified mother about the league she had allowed her son to play in. That being said, one stupid decision does not confer notability. Canada Hky (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Memorable to hockey fans, but not notable. The event should be covered on the OHL's page for the season, or possibly in an article about violent instances in hockey. Kugel himself is not notable. Canada Hky (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Canada Hky. Even that one brief moment of stupidity has faded. Reso lute 04:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do something, but don't delete I remember the incident in 1998 distinctly. It garnered quite a bit of attention, not just locally, but nationally, as well ("violence in hockey" stories, ect., ect.). I'm sure if someone were to look through old news stories from that era, plenty of sources could be found. With that said, given the rest of his career (or lack thereof), it does come pretty close to being a BLP1E. Perhaps a merge to 1998–99 OHL season could be in order? Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is pertinent to the season article, but it's still very much a BLP1E. Ravenswing 19:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as either a hockey player or MMA fighter.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar (film director)

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

Author of questionable notability. Yes, he has written some books and turned some of those books into movies, but with the possible exception of his book covers (which are not in English) shown on his own blog, there are no English references that show significant coverage or otherwise indicate that this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines under any category. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 31 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An artist working in Malayalam won't have English sources, rather Malayalam sources. Unfortunately his name ശങ്കർ is very common, and Google Translate does not include Malayalam. So we are stuck without someone who speaks Malayalam. I am nonetheless !voting Keep because there does seem to be strong suggestions of notability, anyone with that many creative works will likely easily pass WP:CREATIVE since the film and/or books will be reviewed or discussed (such as this one[36]). I recommend Keep the article for now with tags for more sources and revisit in a few years to see if a Malayalam-speaker can find more/better sources. -- GreenC 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "Anyone with that many creative works will likely easily pass WP:CREATIVE" - While this statement may seem seem self-evident, I do not accept it as such, particularly in today's world of cheap self-publishing. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that it's not self-evident. As nominator, I would be open to this being userfied until we know for sure that the person is notable and reliable-source references are provided. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we disagree, I think it should be Kept not userfied. -- GreenC 02:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC's suggestion that a Malayalan speaker would be helpful — I don't see any need to rush with a deletion of an article with inoffensive/uncontroversial content. Perhaps somebody who wants to invest time in this might begin by asking Wikipedia:WikiProject_India or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Kerala if anybody would be able to look over the article in ml.wikipedia.org and bring over any useful references? – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just left messages on both Wikiproject's talk pages. (India, Kerala) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GreenC's suggestion. I've asked some of my friends at the Malayalam Wikipedia to help me find sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sifu Liv

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

Non-notable martial arts instructor, fails WP:ANYBIO. Only reference is to a franchisor. WWGB (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 'Sifu' is a title, like master/sensei/equivalent. The person's legal name is "Liv Vasudevan". WP:GOOG did not turn up any useful hits, but this is India... if there was any media-coverage, e.g. of the four national martial arts championships that the article says Liv has "conducted" (maybe that's language barrier for won? or language barrier for attended?) the press would probably be Hindi or Devangari or Tamil or similar. Would need to know how their name ("Sifu Liv" and/or "Liv Vasudevan") is rendered in those glyph-systems to do a proper search. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Conducted" usually means he ran/organized the tournaments. In the U.S., we'd refer to him as the tournament promoter. Papaursa (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article currently stands, he doesn't meet WP:MANOTE. Two of the three references point to the same thumbnail portrait at an organization's website and the third is merely a listing of schools, which is insufficient to show he meets WP:GNG. Article is by an SPA, probably a student (based on the article's title). Papaursa (talk) 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on notability grounds. I cleaned up the worst of the pregnant prose but really there must be more of an indication of notability and impact.Peter Rehse (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. jni (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Giedrius Karavackas

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

Non-notable MMA fighter. He did get 2 of 3 top tier fights but that was awhile back so chance of getting 3rd for WP:MMANOT is low. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:MANOTE with only two top tier fights and he hasn't fought since 2011 so a third top tier fight seems unlikely.Mdtemp (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources except for a link to his fight record. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with above notability concerns. jni (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition#Awards. Any content worth merging can be recovered from the article history. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PAMI Young Researcher Award

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

A "Young Researcher Award" is almostby definition non-notable. Certainly in this case, with only one year's awardees (who are not yet notable), Zero independent references. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders why Wikipedia maintains Category:IEEE society and council awards if articles for such awards (which are among the most prestigious in the field of computer science) are flagged for deletion over notability concerns. Both recipients of the 2013 PAMI Young Researcher Award are indeed notable within the field of computer vision (in terms of scholarly impact, both have 4000+ citations to their credit, see: http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=9aw_QGAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao and http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Jp6Mz1sAAAAJ&hl=en).Wscheirer (talk) 21:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tend to agree with DGG (talk · contribs), insofar as the following: "Career achievement" awards by learned societies to elder scientists who have had successful careers are themselves inherently notable, and help confirm notability of the awardees per WP:PROF. They also provide Wikipedia with a list of subjects to ensure are stubbed. The issue with "young researcher" awards is that many of the recipients aren't notable. A proportion will go onto successful careers, but a proportion won't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, there is an interesting question about a very similar matter just raised by User:Kudpung on my talk page -- I refer there for my answer, which is somewhat more general. I do not think every awards by a society is necessarily notable: even a major society has minor as well as major awards. The IEEE seem determined to get every one of their awards in WP; I'm not sure this is a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Major vs minor: I would assume all are noteworthy in their field, but if you want to objectively draw a line of what not to include, I assume the more important ones are going to be lifetime achievement awards and awards open to anyone, while less important ones will have restrictions on who can win them (e.g. this one), since they were also eligible for open-to-anyone awards. ––Agyle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur with DGG (DGG (NYPL)).Insufficient third-party sources exist in order to comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria for stand-alone articles, and where the named recipients may not be notable according to WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:NLIST. One solution may possibly be to merge to the main article at IEEE Computer Society, but without the list of recipients. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helmholtz Prize, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Everingham Prize. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think what User:Kudpung proposes about merging these articles on computer vision prizes into the IEEE Computer Society article is a reasonable compromise. However, how do we determine what is a major prize and what is a minor prize? Many of the articles Category:IEEE society and council awards suffer from this same issue of lack of third party sources (despite notability within the academic community at large). Wscheirer (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP:NPP system has never performed satisfactorily and there are hundreds of thousands of articles in the encyclopedia that have escaped attention or or have been tagged for years without being improved (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mighty Liberators Drum and Bugles Corps for an example. See also WP:AADD, in particular sub section WP:OCE; while that is an essay and not a policy or official guideline it highlights common sense examples of how the policies and guidelines should be interpreted at AfD. Ideally, the other articles in Category:IEEE society and council awards should now come under review again with an effort to establish notability according to Wikipedia's criteria, or otherwise merge or unfortunately delete them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the discussion and links ––Agyle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition#Awards for lack of evidence of independent notability. IEEE TC-CS is too broad a merge target. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition#Awards. Just going by WP:GNG. Take away the IEEE references, and nothing is left as a reliable source. While I understand the allowances made for notability of people in WP:ACADEMIC fields, I'm not sure how much leeway should be given to awards in academic fields. If you set aside normal standards of notability, I don't see a way of objectively judging any of the IEEE's machine vision awards; they all seem to depend on the IEEE saying how prestigious they are, with virtually no neutral sources saying anything about them, other than in massing. ––Agyle (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition#Awards. This is also a suitable compromise. It appears this solution is already being used to resolve the related issues with the prizes given at the International Conference on Computer Vision. Wscheirer (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Exchange Bank

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bank was a publicly-listed company prior to its acquisition by UnionBank, and is covered in several reliable sources (see this). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources specifically establish its notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google Book and News. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it really notable though? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You tell me. Since Google News is busted (as seen from its absence in the "Find sources" template above), have you tried searching at Philippine news websites? –H T D 10:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only relevant link talks about its acquisition by Union Bank of the Philippines, so it should redirect there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - For some reason, if we used the same link as above, I didn't see your source. On the first page of the link supplied earlier above, I came up with two articles that clearly WP:RS: this and this, which talk nothing about the merger; in fact the second one talks about its formation. –H T D 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, consider my nomination withdrawn then. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "keep" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Bank of Misamis Oriental

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

The sole ref in the article is not enough to establish notability per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But is it notable? I have yet to see a ref supporting that claim. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you looked for references, as stated in WP:COMPANY? –H T D 10:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seriously, nothing. (ps. I'd like to point out that WP:COMPANY is a guideline which "should be attempted to be followed, though it is best treated with common sense" and that editors are "encouraged" and not forced to search for references--which I did btw) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah. Google News has been crap lately. I found this on plain old Google search. I realize you've prodded/AFDed twenty or more articles, but it seems you weren't encouraged enough to search at least one. Being merely a "guideline" doesn't mean you won't totally do it. –H T D 14:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, the Google Books search you gave up so easily? There are seven (certainly not nothing) results, and one says "For the housing loans subproject, the financial capability of Cooperative Bank of Misamis Oriental, Inc. (CBMOI), a representative CFI, was examined. CBMOI is among the top ten best performing cooperative banks in the country." That's notability for you. –H T D 14:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Which of these sources actually discuss the subject with in-depth coverage? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If you actually read the first link I supplied, the entire Sunstar article is about the bank per se. As for the book source, it's inconclusive since it's only accessible via snippet view. However, the brief passage that we got clearly demonstrates notability. –H T D 08:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So that is the only link? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        TBH, I dunno. The book source looks important enough but I can't see all of it. –H T D 11:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't have anything to do with cleanup. It has to do with notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - It certainly doesn't look like it, since you've virtually affirmed in a number of AfDs that it is about cleanup rather than about notability. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really? Where have I "virtually affirmed" this being about cleanup rather than notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - User:Raykyogrou0 why did you not check Google Books before filing this AFD? A simple search would have found an ADB report 2003 saying "For the housing loans subproject, the financial capability of Cooperative Bank of Misamis Oriental, Inc. (CBMOI), a representative CFI, was examined. CBMOI is among the top ten best performing cooperative banks in the country, with liquidity, profitability, asset quality, and capital adequacy ratios consistently above the industry average. " - why didn't you search Google Books and Google News before submitting these AFDs? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why did you not provide any sources before deprodding? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why did you not choose to be bold and actually find those sources and edit them into the article, instead of taking the easy way out by nominating articles wholesale for deletion, and being so self-righteous as to criticize other editors for not doing the work that you're also capable of doing? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because it was not deemed notable? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Again, what's your standard? You being accused of not even bothering to do due diligence and diligently search for sources in a number of other Philippine bank-related AfDs (with others having to do it for you instead of you doing it yourself) shows that you're jumping to conclusions and passing judgement blindly with what appears to be reckless abandon. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Again, what makes you think I didn't perform simple searches? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        You really think you're just supposed to do the minimum that's asked of you? If you think you can get away with doing just the bare minimum, I have no confidence in you having the competence to determine whether a topic is notable or not. And if that's how you think AfD is supposed to work, then I guess In ictu oculi was right when he/she said in the Banco Filipino nomination that you should seriously take a break from AfD-ing until you actually know what you're doing. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        That's allright, I don't have any confidence in you knowing what you're doing either. (I don't need your confidence, thanks) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, not all cooperative banks -- this one being one of them -- are notable. Among the types of banks in the Philippines, only the "universal" and "commercial" banks are almost certainly notable, "almost certainly" because WP:COMPANY doesn't give inherent notability. However, this looks like to be a clear winner amongst cooperative banks, as per the one of the Google Books sources the nominator didn't spot -- and there are only seven of them. I'd still stand by the speedy keep without prejudice to relisting again in the future as the nominator clearly didn't make an effort in searching (either by himself or by asking others) for sources WP:BEFORE starting the AFD. Once the nominator actually does something of that sort, and still nothing comes up, then can the AFD continue. –H T D 16:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter now anyway since it's been three days after the nomination, any closure won't be "speedy" enough. –H T D 08:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 Copa Catalunya

AfDs for this article:

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

I closed a discussion on this article earlier this week as no consensus, on the basis of plenty of !votes but no actual policy based arguments. One of the participants has requested I relist the nomination in the hope that policy based arguments would be articulated. As it's been a few days I've chosen to start a new discussion rather than re-open the old one. As a procedural nomination I am Neutral as to whether the article ought to be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to indicate the notability of the subject. None of the other Copa Catalunya season articles have sources either, so they should probably all go unless there's a major turnaround before the end of this AfD. If that change occurs, someone let me know so I can change my !vote. – Pee Jay 13:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to expand on my identical !vote on the first AFD - the relevant guideline here is WP:SPORTSEVENT, while WP:NSEASONS also applies. Both ask for "well-sourced prose" of which there is none in this article (or related), and there is no evidence that any of the individual seasons of this competition have been covered in detail by reliable sources i.e. they also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails criteria #3 of WP:NOT#STATS. The single reference used in the article does not establish NOTABILITY for the subject. I am unable to find any reliable sources that discuss the 2005-06 Copa Catalunya season in any detail. I agree that the other seasons should be nominated for deletion also. The article lacks context, and could easily be summarize in a one line listing in the Copa Catalunya article. It escapes my comprehension why an encyclopedia should have detailed sports stats, images of flags, and especially paper doll images of teams uniforms with almost no prose whatsoever. I also endorse the other convincing arguments made by GiantSnowman and PeeJay2K3.- Mr X 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above, unlikely that sufficient sourced prose could be written based on reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been well covered in the Catalan media at the time. El Mundo Deportivo covered in detail. For example, the final is on page 1 of their September 6, 2006 edition [37], page 2 [38], page 3 [39], and page 4 [40]. Meets WP:GNG Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – GNG states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." so there is no indication from your comment, Nfitz, that GNG is satisfied. C 679 20:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If one were to believe that no other Catalan source covered it, then that would be a valid point. However, the coverage is so extensive in that one source, it's beyond question it would have been covered elsewhere. And it was ... [41]. I admit though, finding Catalan articles on the web a decade later is a challenge. On any subject! Do you doubt there wouldn't have been significant coverage in El Punt, El Periódico, or El 9 Esportiu; none of which unfortunately contain on-line archives back that far? Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of my doubt, it's your unsupported assertion it meets GNG without evidence why you believe that to be the case. FWIW I have read the elpais link (via google translate) and it seems to be sufficient for the Copa Catalunya, but not particularly useful or relevant to the 2005–06 competition. If you don't have any sources for any part of the competition beyond the final, the only logical conclusion is to detail the final at the cup main page and to delete the season article. C 679 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's are sources for other parts of competition. Some are listed at the Catlan version of the page. Nfitz (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments above. C 679 12:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normal season article. Another seasons are: 2010–11 Copa Catalunya, 2012–13 Copa Catalunya, 2013–14 Copa Catalunya. It is a very strange to delete one season article and keep all another. NickSt (talk) 10:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this opinion seems to be at direct odds with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The more appropriate argument would be that if this AfD results in deletion then the others should be AfD'd as well if they do not appear to meet GNG. Not sure what you mean by "normal season article" either, it isn't really one covered by WP:NSEASONS, so definitely needs to show GNG clearly. Fenix down (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Delete per rationale given by GiantSnowman above. Fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Nick and Nfitz above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative Bank of Tarlac

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yeah, lots of sources here. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep as above. This entire campaign has been extremely wasteful of editor time. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I can really see how this has been wasteful for you particularly. </sarcastic> Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely right, because I've had to look up sources on 20 Philippine Banks and add them where needed, it has been extremely time consuming. Why couldn't you use Google Books and Google News yourself and do this - instead of using bytes to add comments like the above? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only time you've ever edited this article is to deprod saying "bulk prod should not be used". Also, if all of this was too time-consuming for you then why did you even bother? Have you seen my above comment with links to google books and news searches? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I looked up all 20 banks before opposing your AFDs. Yes I've seen your [lots of sources here] post. You seem to be viewing this as some kind of adversarial game whereby it is your job to make sarcastic taunts and other editors' job to run around rescuing articles you prod and AFD. I hope this is not the case. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are not deemed notable which is why I nominated them. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1st Valley Bank

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

Not notable as per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so now you're just copy-pasting your comments. Could you actually provide any sources establishing this particular bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've stated before, this isn't a matter of cleanup. This is a matter of notability, or lack thereof. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bank is notable given the sources; the nominator should have really tried harder. Seriously, there's this, this and this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the sources are all dated 2006, how come you didn't add them when you started editing this article in 2008? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" don't have actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as with the other 20 banks. Incidentally to say to an "so now you're just copy-pasting your comments" and then do exactly the same illustrates the lack of care that behind this whole waste of bytes. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your empty arguments and personal opinions to yourself. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coventry House Publishing

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

Non-notable publishing house. Speedy deletion tag removed by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My rebuttal would be that because Coventry House Publishing is comprised of authors, and two of those authors are notable beyond refute as part of Wikipedia (Burke Badenhop, Jake Anderson) then Coventry House Publishing is therefore notable, too. Two notable authors who share a common publishing house thereby make that publishing house notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pubwriter112 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any substantial coverage of this company. Their website claims they currently have 18 books for sale[42] including such titles as "Introduction to Conducting Private Investigations" and "How to Really Win or Lose a Guy in Ten Days", so they're not one of the biggest firms and not specialising in the areas that get critical attention, but they would still be notable if anyone had written about them. Having two notable authors (who aren't exactly Stephen King and seem to be mainly famous for other things) doesn't in itself make you notable: see WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete No independent sources, no WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED, no keepy. Also it's an interesting coincidence that the same editor wrote an article on Philip Becnel and his publisher. Some might even say it looked like a PR firm was hired by one or the other to write wikipages for them... Sailsbystars (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banco San Juan

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even looked for sources yourself? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're preaching to the choir, obviously. You're not even thorough with your searching and now you're telling us how to do it? Please. (And, oh yeah, per Seth Nimbosa, I say Keep.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please elaborate on how I wasn't "thorough" with my search. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep - this campaign really isn't the way to go about things. Yes a prod may startle some editors into making large improvements to an article here by User:Seth Nimbosa, but that isn't the purpose of Prods or AFDs. It seems that at least half of the 20 or 30 banks prodded should simply have been improved, and the speed of drive by tagging of 20-30 articles, not having added a single banking source to any one, indicates an unhelpful focus on deletion rather than improvement. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This "campaign" has more to do with the lack of notability of a majority of these articles. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Close/Keep - Mr.Raykyogrou0 have you tried this search it turned out several articles and I will flesh them out in the article when I have the time, clearly some articles are a work in progress and they need attention from experts or hobbyists who have the time to actually maintain these topics, most are stub-like articles that should be expanded and referenced with much-needed content to be contributed.. the solution is NOT to delete them speedily.. notability is not all about references alone, most articles submitted for deletion are only badly maintained articles that need more attention, thanks for this kind of treatment, it had the unintended consequence of pulling me back to editing articles on the English wiki! --—-— .:Seth_Nimbosa:. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, those all talk about the banks acquisition by Banco de Oro. Nothing notable about this bank. Speedy deletion is different from AfD, btw. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy Keep" or "Close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One Network Bank

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. It's only link is the company's website. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I call BS. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about notability, not clean-up. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, Raykyogrou0, but I call BS on your accusation that there's "seriously nothing" about this bank. Explain this, this, this, this, this and this, then. Don't make it appear that you've done due diligence: it's becoming glaringly apparent that you didn't. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

People are supposed to search Google News and Google Books and I seriously found nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason, I find that claim (that you seriously found nothing) extremely hard to believe. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I'm sorry that that is beyond your comprehension. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy Keep" or "Close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close - on the basis of sources, and per the self declared use of Prod and AFD on these 20 banks to get other editors to add sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, what is your problem? How many times do I have to repeat that if I wanted this article cleaned up I would have tagged it as such and not nominated it. The only declaration here is the one by you. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Security Bank Savings

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

Not notable. It's only references point to "trivial and incidental coverage". (WP:COMPANY) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that I actually had done that, how valid is your over-used copy-pasted statement? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back to Premiere Development Bank. The successor institution is not notable, but the predecessor institution is, and a deeper Google search shows that it is the primary subject in a number of third-party sources (such as this, this, this, this and this). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to open an RM then. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't cleanup-related. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ultimately, there's no consensus within the discussion at this time. Please note that I reviewed and accepted the AfC entry for Tongyang Group. I'll leave it to others to decide if Tong Yang Bank should be expanded per the sources within this discussion or merged/redirected to Tongyang Group. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tong Yang Bank

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

No indication of any notability per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tong Yang Bank is not publicly traded itself. It is a fully-owned subsidiary of Tongyang Securities (ref), and not a very large one at that. Tongyang Securities itself is listed (KRX: 003470). The best approach would be to start an article on Tongyang Group first, write about all the group members in context (including Tongyang Securities), and later assess whether there's a need to spin off an article on Tongyang Securities, per Wikipedia:Summary style. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see WP:RS among the English Google hits, and the depth of coverage in Korean is not particularly impressive either (see e.g. Naver News archive search [43], mostly trivial mentions in the context of other Tong Yang companies). Best solution is probably to create an article on the Tongyang Group (quick, before they collapse! [44][45]) and merge this into there. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 14:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have submitted an AFC draft about the Tongyang Group. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tongyang Group. Regards, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The draft for Tongyang Group looks very good. Meanwhile, this discussion should be put on hold until the AfC is accepted so this page can be redirected there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- HTD's rationale says "given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable". Tong Yang Bank is not a publicly traded company, and in a search I do not see enough independent, reliable sources either in English or Korean to write an article about them. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 09:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm getting the general idea that htd and davey just went around copy-pasting their comments on all afd's I opened without individually even looking at the articles. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though I don't speak Korean, it appears that the bank is notable using a very rough Google Translate-generated translation of the articles: this, this and this should prove my point. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps it would fit better on the Korean wikipedia then. Where are the original links because, the text appears to be broken. (or lost in translation) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Per WP:GNG, sources "do not have to be in English" to contribute to notability on English Wikipedia. However, they do have to be independent and in-depth. Of the links posted, #2 and #3 are advertorials/press releases for branch openings (relevant WP:N quote: "announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources"). The tone doesn't really come across when you Google Translate it (you'll probably be too distracted by howlers like "new address for Allah prevention"), so here's a manual translation of one paragraph:

Passage with translation

동양은행은 그 동안 필리핀은행들에 비하여 여러 가지 편리한 은행서비스를 제공하여 필리핀의 한국교민사회 및 유학생들에게 많은 도움을 주어왔다. 또한 지점장과 창구 직원이 한국인이어서 아주 편리하고 신속하다. 통장개설절차를 간소화하여 한국인이 손쉽게 보통예금(Savings Account) 또는 당좌예금(Current Account)을 당일로 오픈할 수 있게 되었다. 현금인출카드(ATM)와 수표책(Check Book)을 사용함으로써 현금보유에 따르는 위험을 덜고 학교등록금, 집세 등을 수표로 지급할 수 있게 되었다. 또한 동양은행의 ATM카드는 체크카드(직불카드)의 기능을 함께 가지고 있어 마트에서 물건을 사거나 집에서 인터넷으로 각종공과금을 납부할 수 있어 편리하다.

During that period, Tong Yang Bank, compared to other Philippine banks, has provided all kinds of convenient banking services, and given lots of help to the Korean expatriate community in the Philippines and international students. Additionally, branch managers and counter staff are Koreans, so it's very fast and convenient. Account opening procedures have been simplified, and Koreans can easily open a savings account and current account on the same day. By using a cash withdrawal card (ATM) and checkbook, [you] can avoid the danger of carrying around cash, and can pay for school enrolment fees, rent, etc. with checks. Tong Yang Bank's ATM card comes with check card (debit card) functionality too, so you can enjoy convenience whether you're shopping at the supermarket or paying bills at home on the internet."

The first link features a paragraph or two of independently-written content in its lede, but the rest is an interview (i.e. a primary source) consisting of hard-hitting questions like "What are the advantages of using your ATM service?" The fourth link I cannot access due to a malware warning. And all of these are from local Korean expat community papers in Manila, not wide-circulation Philippine or South Korean newspapers with well-established journalistic reputations. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-english sources would normally be fine all the links contain gibberish like "»óÇß´ø ÀÎ¿øº¸´Ù ´õ ¸¹Àº ÀÎ»çµéÀÌ Âü¼®ÇÏ¿© ¼ºÈ²À» ÀÌ·é °¡¿îµ¥ ÁøÇàµÈ µ¿¾ç¿À¸®¿Â ÀºÇà Ã¢¸³ 8ÁÖ³â ±â³ä½ÄÀº Ç" instead of korean. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yeah, that. All the links are in EUC-KR encoding, but don't bother specifying "charset" headers anywhere. (If the malware warnings didn't already tip you off: their server admins apparently have no clue what they are doing.) In your web browser, try choosing EUC-KR (sometimes just labelled "Korean") encoding manually instead. E.g. in Chrome under Tools-> Encoding, first uncheck "Auto Detect", then go back to the same menu and pick "Korean". 61.10.165.33 (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see now. Just wow. I thought it was a machine-translated version that got messed up. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:15, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Bank

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. The only link is the company's website. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not publicly listed, the bank is notable, having been covered in several third-party sources (see this, this and this). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you didn't add these to the article because...? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I don't know, because doing so will disprove your point that "Oh, I'm doing this because of notability and not because of cleanup"? Or, to be serious about it, because I'm trying to manage all the other articles you put up for AfD, and I'm only one person? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And let me repeat this again: If I wanted it cleaned up, I would have tagged it as such--not nominated it. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like the nominator Raykyogrou0 is posting all the created articles by Sky Harbor to deletion without even seeing any sign of notability of any article. This is not an healthy symptom. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I'd like to point out that this article was created by someone else entirely. Second, I didn't see any notability which is why I nominated it—--the only link in the entire article is the bank's website. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, to repeat a question that has been asked on some of the other AfDs, you didn’t bother searching outside because…? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello, I did. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You make this claim throughout a number of the AfDs (in particular the PostalBank AfD). You asked how you weren't being "thorough" with your search in the Banco San Juan nomination, right? Here's your answer: it looks like you weren't being thorough at all, providing general search engine results without even bothering to put up the pretense of actually parsing through them to find material relevant to the bank. Heck, you didn't even bother narrowing the search to filter out links not relevant to the Philippines, nor searching elsewhere (Google News, Philippine newspapers, etc.). How come then I (and other editors, mind you) was able to find data that proves as to the notability of this institution, whereas you were unable to? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, where are these alleged links proving this bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep - as with the other 20 banks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any actual arguments? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Bank of Marayo

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

No indication of notability. Nothing has been done to improve the article since prodding. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think I didn't? What if I didn't actually find anything which could establish its notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above and also the bank seems to be notable in other sources too. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources art thou talkin' 'bout? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bank is notable, in particular since it was declared the Philippines' best countryside financial institution in 2009: see this and this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many countryside financial institutions does the country have exactly? It doesn't really seem like a significant award. (If they were notable awards, Wikipedia would have articles on them) Seems like the source(s) don't describe the subject with in-depth coverage. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" don't have actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep - the rationale "Nothing has been done to improve the article since prodding", and the speed and lack of actual article edits on these 20 bank articles indicates that the nominator does not understand that Prod and AFD are not to be used to coerce other editors to improve articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any actual arguments which would prove this bank's notability or are you just commenting on all afd's I started for the heck of it? What you don't seem to understand and what I've repeated endlessly is that I did not want the article to be improved, but rather deleted since there was nothing to improve. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen City Development Bank

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

Not notable per WP:COMPANY. No references were added to indicate its notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the other Philippine bank AFDs and nom not understanding the purpose of AFD. "No refs were added" - sorry but what does that mean? - it is not the purpose of AFD to push other editors into adding references to articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator perfectly understands AfD, i.e. to delete articles about non-notable subjects like this bank. "No refs were added" to establish its notability. So how are people supposed to believe that the bank actually is notable if nobody has added any refs supporting that claim. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, did you just go around copy-pasting your comment everywhere without even checking the article? Is it really notable?? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bank is notable given its coverage in both English and non-English sources: see this, this, this, this, this and this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Philstar source seems to be the only useful source given by you. The first one, from a radio station's website (given from what I can comprehend) talks about the employee's salaries. Could be useful, but how reliable is this website? The Inquirer and The News Today links only have passing mentions. The two archived links from the Visayan Daily Star talk about the bank's new branch opening. Are there any links that actually could establish this bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" don't have actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Books, I found brief listings, usually just the name, in several business directories and directories of banks. What I found confirmed a few facts in the article. —rybec 06:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Planters Development Bank

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

No indication of notability. Nothing has been done to improve its references since prodding. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bank has significant coverage in reliable sources (see [46], for example), and as mentioned in previous AfDs about Philippine banks, I'd actually like to see the nominator put the effort to improve the article in question (since he/she is so concerned about referencing and sources) rather than just go around nominating articles willy-nilly for deletion. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if any of the articles you created years ago actually had some sources added to them. The concern about referencing and sources is that there are no sources on the page which would establish this bank's notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- sigh. Is it notable though? Is it really?Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a matter of notability, not cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First United Bank

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. First ref only lists its assets. The second says the bank donated to a school. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Umpteenth reply: And what makes you think I didn't perform a simple search? And where are your sources proclaiming this particular bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for User:Howard the Duck, and I am not sure of your definition of "a simple search", but I do not think for any of these 20 banks you performed an adequate search because of the following three indications:

(1) the speed between prods,

(2) the failure to look in Google Books and Google News on the 20 other prod/afds.

(3) not actually stopping to add sources to any other bank articles

These are classic signs of drive by hobby deletionism. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: In that context, you may as well apply to the AIW. Anyways, what if I told you that maybe, just maybe, I performed searches for all of the articles prior to actually prodding them? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you told someone that you'd then have to explain why you couldn't find plain mentions in Google Books and Google News. Fact is you didn't do the minimum of due diligence, you made a disruptive and time wasting run at a large number of Philippine banks expecting other editors to jump to it and add sources. This is not what Prod and AFD are for. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no mentions. I am not expecting anyone to add sources, please keep your mutated opinion to yourself. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup, notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep - as per comments such as "Nothing has been done to improve the article between prodding and deprodding" pushing other editors to add sources or else is not the purpose of Prod or AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to this specific afd, where did I say that? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to copy-paste this on every single AFD you have started? Please stop it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no because people don't seem to understand what "speedy keep" actually means. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. The nomination has been withdrawn, and no other delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Cebu

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

As per WP:COMPANY: There has only been trivial or incidental coverage of the article subject by secondary sources, which is not sufficient to establish notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If I wanted cleanup, I would have tagged it as such. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bank is notable, as it is covered in a number of reliable sources, which have been integrated into the article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 08:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- *which have now been integrated by me... (consider my nomination withdrawn as of this edit) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Amanah Islamic Investment Bank of the Philippines

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

Not notable. The only ref in the article talks about its acquisition by the Developmental Bank. Nothing has been done to improve its references to indicate its notability since prodding. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bank is obviously notable as the country's only Islamic bank, and if the nominator wanted references that did not involve the buy-out by DBP, there's this, this, this and this. Again, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and I'm sure it would have been appreciated if the nominator actually decided to expand the article rather than just nominate it for deletion. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (What if I told you that) It wasn't really in my interest to expand an article not deemed notable in the first place? And again, this isn't a matter of cleanup but notability. But with the additional sources added by you, consider my nomination withdrawn. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (I've just noticed this after the fourth identical post, exactly what do you mean by "they a 2nd nomination may be pursued"?) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a matter of cleanup, but notability (however, see above^) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Security Bank

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

Not notable. The only ref points to a pdf of the bank disclosing its assets to the public. Nothing has been done to improve the article between prodding and deprodding. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The bank is a publicly-listed company and is covered in several third-party sources (see this) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of those "sources" actually specifically establish the bank's notability? The first link talks about it opening new branches. The second is about a bank in Milwaukee. The third talks about a United Security Bank. The fourth is about a new branch. The fifth is about a First Security Bank. I can go on and on. Perhaps you should add specific links. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first source, about new branches, is actually useful; it means business is booming. The seventh link talks about the bank buying another bank, another valid source. I guess we should like stop using Google News and search on individual news websites now since it's busted now... –H T D 10:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (U+TC)
- And copy-pasted again. Is it notable though? Is it really? Do you have any proof of that? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - This copy-paste isn't about the merits of this AFD. WP:COMPANY states that since this bank is listed at the stock exchange, the nominator has to look for sources first before nominating. Judging by the edit history, this didn't happen. You can nominate this again if you failed in finding sources. –H T D 10:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it's more like "you copy-pasted the above statement in over 10 different afd's, without (probably) even looking at the article or putting forward sources to establish the alleged notability". (ps. what does the edit history have to do with not finding sources?) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 13:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, but did you just describe what you did not do? You didn't find sources for at least one of the 20 AFDs you did as what was encouraged by WP:COMPANY? Even just one?
      - As for edit histories, if you tagged the article a month ago, that's an indication that you at least made an effort. You prodded and AFDed in a matter of days. There was no indication of effort to find sources as per WP:COMPANY and WP:BEFORE. –H T D 14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        What part of "there were no sources to find" don't you understand? Btw, this article was tagged since March 2013. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you supply me of the Google search that you used? –H T D 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 02:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        For some reason, the Google News search sucks now, since it only works for news articles within the past 30 days. The link found at WP:BEFORE is actually useful to use now. For this one, I used a normal web search, restricted the country to "Philippines", and by the second page I found some; the first page was all about their own websites, and those can't be used. At any point, Google News can't be used now and I suggest using local news websites. This one at GMA News actually got 310 results; this one at Inquirer got 1,680(!) results. –H T D 11:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, for some reason, if you look for ""security bank" awards" in normal Google search, and restrict it to webpages from the Philippines, you'd come up with plenty of sources by the second page (as the first page is mostly their stuff). Google News search isn't useful anymore unless it happened within the last 30 days. –H T D 11:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        (The GMA News link didn't show your results, so I had to search it again) Okay, consider my nomination withdrawn. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        It's their fault. It happened to me too earlier. You just have to use the search box at the main search page instead of the usual search box seen everywhere on that website. –H T D 12:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- For the third time, this isn't a matter of cleanup but rather one about notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - IMHO I think you've done it for clean up, Also as others have said you haven't even bothered finding sources..... (You'll be pleased to know I'm not planning on pasting this 20+ times neither!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, nobody asked for your opinion of my intentions. If I wanted it to be cleaned up, I would have tagged it as such and not prodded it. Do you have any actual arguments or do you want to keep on with this off-topic thread? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close - per "Nothing has been done to improve the article between prodding and deprodding" - this comment makes it clear again that this drive by adding of prod and AFD tags to Philippine bank articles was done with the intent of coercing other editors to improve articles. This is not the purpose of either Prod or AFD and should be understood and not repeated. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it before about three different times. If I wanted the article cleaned up and not deleted, I would have tagged it as such. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Legality of cannabis. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis reform at the international level

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

The stated topic of this article is "efforts to ease restrictions on cannabis use under international treaties" but the article instead outlines some international agreements and the "reform" element consists of unsourced editorial speculation (e.g. "Nations could withdraw", "The only way to modify cannabis regulations at the international level would be call a conference", "These comments suggest that support from the Board is unlikely in the near future.") In addition, there is some general, US-centric commentary on cannabis law that has nothing do to with International efforts at reform. This appears to be a synthetic topic being used for speculation and as a coat rack. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any salvageable content to Legality of cannabis and redirect. There is serious problem of duplicate content (and sometimes POV forking) throughout the suite of cannabis articles, making maintenance more of a chore than it need be. Where a broader article exists that could contain the content, it should be used; the "Legality" page allows the article to cover historical and overview aspects, and the title is more neutrally positioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Legality of cannabis as per SandyGeorgia. Alexius08 (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kay the Aquanaut

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

Musician fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 20:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Are you deliberately wasting people's time? Please familiarise yourself with WP:MUSICBIO, as well as WP:ATD, and this essay, particularly this passage: "Rather than putting the article on AfD, try expanding it. Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily." I've added a few more sources. Please stop recklessly nominating articles for deletion when you don't know anything about the subjects, aren't familiar with the actual notability criteria, and aren't willing to do the work to expand the articles. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add that, in addition to meeting criterion #1 at WP:MUSICBIO, Kay the Aquanaut meets criterion #5, in that he has released three albums on Circle Into Square. CIS don't yet have a Wiki article, but they are notable on the basis of having mulitple notable artists in their roster, including Cars & Trains, Boy In Static, Keith Kenniff and Loden, and their sister relationship with Fake Four Inc. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 02:57, 29 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't sufficient to simply assert that a person meets WP:NMUSIC. Rather, reliable sources must be present to verify that the topic meets NMUSIC — and if they aren't, then an article can still be deleted no matter how much unsourced notability you claim the topic has. This article, as written, relies exclusively on deprecated sources such as blogs and student newspapers and his own Facebook page, and provides absolutely no legitimately sourced demonstration that he actually meets any of the NMUSIC criteria. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ugsmag, The Sheaf, The Rooster, Pound Magazine, SYFFAL and Hip Hop Canada are reliable sources: not self-published, not lacking in editorial oversight, not unestablished. The subject therefore meets criterion #1 at WP:MUSICBIO. I didn't think it necessary to list the reliable sources here as they are already in the article. Your statement about the quality of the sources is false, and you did not comment on the argument that he also meets criterion #5 at WP:MUSICBIO. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, most of those sources are blogs (which are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia), and the one that isn't is a university student newspaper (which is also not accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia). Furthermore, the article as written completely fails to even contain any substantive content about him at all — every single one of the aforementioned "sources" is just piled up one after the other to reference a single statement of his existence, without actually documenting anything about him or his career beyond that single sentence. So even if they were valid sources, which they're not, what they're being cited in isn't a proper encyclopedia article.

And as has already been noted elsewhere in this discussion, the assertion that Circle Into Square counts as a notable indie label is not supported by sourcing — and even if it were, the claim that he released material on it is unsourced. So you can say that he's released albums on a notable indie label all you like — but you've failed to reliably source that he's released albums on a notable indie label. Bearcat (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article is a stub. There are many stubs on Wikipedia. An article being a stub is not a reason to delete it. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. The article is obviously not a WP:PERMASTUB. 2) No, they aren't blogs (as in self-published, lacking editorial oversight). Are you just making this up or what? Ugsmag is one of the most established underground hip hop magazines, The Rooster is a local magazine published by a chain of lifestyle accessories shops in Western Canada, The Sheaf is a 102-year-old student newspaper (cite policy please on your claim that this is not a WP:RS), and Hip Hop Canada is a division of HipHopCanada Inc and one of the biggest hip hop sites in Canada, if not the biggest. 3) WP:MUSICBIO #5 states that an artist may be considered notable if he "Has released two or more albums on ... one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." I have listed Circle Into Square's notable artists above. 4) Uh, here's his entry on CIS, which is also in the actual article, FYI. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) A stub still has to actually make a credible claim of notability to be keepable; it is not entitled to stick around Wikipedia if all it does is assert that the person exists.

2) Yes, they are blogs. Most of them even say so right on their own "about us" pages. And as for student newspapers not being reliable sources, that's even written right into NMUSIC #1 itself, if you actually read the "except for" points. And just for the record, I even personally argued against its inclusion there, on the grounds that student newspapers aren't actually any less inherently reliable than commercial altweeklies are — but the consensus was established nonetheless, and thus has to be respected and maintained whether you or I personally like it that way or not.

3) You have to be able to properly demonstrate that the label is notable. It does not automatically inherit notability just because it has notable artists recording on it, if it is not itself the subject of enough coverage in reliable sources to get past WP:CORP.

4) WP:PRIMARYSOURCES don't demonstrate notability. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Begging the question. And if notability is demonstrated, then it is clearly entitled to "stick around", unless it is a permastub with no hope for expansion, which it is not, as he is an active musician and the existing sources contain plenty of fodder for expansion (and BTW, the article does not only assert that the person exists, it also contains a full discography, some career history, and basic biographical information).

2) Whether something calls itself a "blog" is neither here nor there. The issue is whether it is a blog (major newspapers have "blogs" too but they're not literally blogs). Ugsmag is not a blog. The Rooster is not a blog. Hip Hop Canada is not a blog. They are not self-published. They have editorial oversight. They are even commercial enterprises with paid staff. SYFFAL may be a borderline case. Fair enough on The Sheaf.

3) The label's notability is neither here nor there. See below.

4) The label's website? I'm not using it to demonstrate notability, I'm using it to proce that he's released "two or more albums" on the label, as you requested. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO, the subject has not received significant independent coverage in reliable sources. You might want to check the sources again, they are nearly all blogs, most of them are self-published and none of them have editorial oversight. Also does not meet criteria 5 of WP:MUSICBIO as there is zero indication that Circle Into Square is a notable indie label, their notability is not inherited by the artists on the label. STATic message me! 04:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Few if any of them are self-published and all of them have editorial oversight (possibly Ominocity is the exception). 2) WP:MUSICBIO #5 states that an artist may be considered notable if he "Has released two or more albums on ... one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." I have listed Circle Into Square's notable artists above. MUSICBIO #5 explicitly states that if an artist is a prominent presence on a notable indie label that they do inherit the label's notability. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO #5 explicitly states that if an artist is a prominent presence on a notable indie label that they do inherit the label's notability. Which is exactly the opposite of StaticVapor's point, which had to do with the label not inheriting notability from its artists. A notable artist can record on a label without automatically conferring notability on the label — the notability of the label depends on whether sources are available which are specifically about the label — and so the fact that other notable artists may have recorded on a label does not automatically make the label notable enough to make it an NMUSIC#5-satisfying label, if you cannot properly source the notability of the label. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MUSICBIO #5 has nothing to do with the notability of the label per se, it simply defines "important indie label" as "an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". The roster of notable performers makes the label important (not notable in the technical Wiki sense), and an artist who has released two or more albums on such an "important" label meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #5 for notability. (Also, FYI, there are no specific notability criteria for record labels, and this a constant source of confusion and controversy. Check the archives.)- Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #5 doesn't pertain to the notability of record labels, no. However, a record label has to pass a notability guideline (the relevant one is WP:CORP) in order to be a record label that is notable enough to satisfy #5. Bearcat (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. MUSICBIO #5 makes no mention of the label's notability. It simply defines "important indie label" in relation to "notable artists". I have demonstrated that CIS has a roster of notable artists. I have thereby demonstrated that CIS fits the MUSICBIO definition of an "important indie label". I have demonstrated that Kay the Aquanaut has released "two or more albums" on this "important indie label". I have therefore demonstrated that Kay the Aquanaut meets MUSICBIO criterion #5 for notability. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the "about" section of every single source cited in the article, zero have a experienced editorial staff, or editorial staff at all for that matter, so do not kid yourself, most just say what they are about and promote themselves. Again, how can you assert that the label is notable or "important," if it lacks a Wikipedia article that asserts its importance. You just saying the same thing over and over again is not going to make it important. STATic message me! 06:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) Did you miss these? Ugsmag, HipHopCanada. 2) Once more with feeling: MUSICBIO #5 defines an "important" (NB: not "notable") indie label as one with a roster of notable artists and a history of more than a few years. All I have to do to demonstrate that CIS is an important label is to demonstrate it meets these two criteria, which I have done. It follows from this that Kay the Aquanaut meets MUSICBIO #5 if he has released two or more albums on CIS, which he has, as I have also demonstrated. Following? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UGSMAG just says they have a "Staff", says nothing of an editor or being editorial, every blog or website obviously has a staff. Just looked up the editorial staff for HipHopCanda, it is borderline, but nothing to indicate they are professionals with years of experience, none have worked at any major publications before so no dice. Even if we did let HHC pass by as possibly reliable, does not mean that a single possibly reliable source would save the article. If you can even call it that, this might as well be a database entry at AllMusic, all it is is one line saying he is a rapper and then a list of his works. What is anyone going to learn by reading the article? Nothing. Back to #5, sorry still has not been demonstrated, notice how I am not the only one that disagrees. Still, trying to achieve a keep based off a single point of WP:MUSICBIO is not going to result in your preferred ending. It is pretty clear that the subject fails the most important point of WP:MUSICBIO (#1) and the WP:GNG at that. 06:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not every blog has a staff, most blogs are hosted on sites like Blogger and Wordpress and run by single individuals, with absolutely no editorial oversight or quality control. 'Blog' is an internet term with several distinct/overlapping meanings; some blogs are hosted on Blogger, some are established news sites with routine editorialisation, some are op-ed pieces in the Guardian. Ugsmag doesn't identify as a blog, it identifies as a magazine, it has a staff, and it's been an established indie hip hop magazine for nearly 15 years. The idea that it's unreliable--even the idea that pieces are published by contributors without any editorial oversight--just has no basis in common sense. Where in the policy does it state that editorial oversight must be maintained by people who have "worked at major publications"? Since it is unusual for someone to go from working at a major publication to working at a minor publication, such a policy would in effect be a MASSIVE mainstream/commercial bias and rule out the encyclopedia's coverage of underground music altogether. Sources must, obviously, be appropriate to the material being sourced; underground hip hop information is ONLY going to be sourced from publications that cover underground hip hop. If this is disallowed, then underground hip hop cannot be included in Wikipedia. These publications are not going to have editorial boards populated by seasoned veterans of major media outlets. The point about editorial oversight at WP:RS is that we can be confident that the material at the source is not published by some random person whose word we have no reason to believe. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Did some searching. Apart from specialized industry publications where the reliability is difficult to ascertain, I couldn't find any major articles or other types of sources discussing the artist. Gm545 (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not surprising for an underground artist though. Specialised industry publications are where this music gets covered. What sort of sources are you looking for discussing underground hip hop? The New York Times? Any comment on MUSICBIO #5? - Wetdogmeat (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, your assertion is that Circle into Square is one of the "more important" indie labels (as required by WP:MUSICBIO#5). I'd change my opinion if I could see some independent sources that demonstrate it. It wouldn't require the New York Times but I'd expect to see several non-trade publications discuss the label with more than a passing mention if it were important. Gm545 (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:MUSICBIO explicitly defines "important" in terms of a roster of notable artists and a history of more than a few years. It explictly states that the concept of "important" is not identical with the concept of "notable". So for an indie record label to be notable, yes, it must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, but for it to be important it must only have a roster of notable artists and a history of more than a few years. The definition is very clearly stated. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A record label still has to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in order to be "important" enough to meet that criterion. The difference in definition is because it is possible for a notable record label to still not be "important" enough to meet the criterion even if it does have an article — but a record label can never meet the criterion if it isn't "notable" in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? It's not there in the guidelines. In fact it's conspicuously absent given that both the concepts of "notability" and "importance" are in play in the criterion and no mention of record label notability is made, only importance (which is explicitly defined as having nothing to do with notability). - Wetdogmeat (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (maybe a "weak" keep) – Google News archive is still down. I searched a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and found plenty of brief mentions of this musician. There are things like this in The StarPhoenix, various mentions of him as part of the band Reform Party (example), a mention in a review in Exclaim!. More convincing is this article about him in The StarPhoenix. (It says in part that he "decided to make a go out of music full time around 15 years ago. In that time, he's released nine albums, toured much of the globe and has made a name for himself in the underground hip-hop scene.") Sure, it would be nicer to have that sort of coverage in a national publication, but WP:NMUSIC does not exclude local coverage—if it's reliable and significant, of course. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added some minor coverage in Exclaim! that refers to his lyrical content and a note from Fake Four Inc. (Circle Into Square's sister label) about his European tour with Noah23. If he didn't before, with the above-added sources he certainly seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO #1 now. He also meets #5, unless the objectors can cite policy to the effect that notability is implied in the explicit definition of "important" that conspicuously fails to mention anything about the notability of the label itself despite the fact that the concept of notability is very much in play in the definition itself with regard to the artists on the label. According to the definition as written (which is a definition that makes an explicit distinction between the concepts of importance and notability) Circle Into Square is "one of the more important indie labels" because it has "a history of more than a few years" and " a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". Kay the Aquanaut has released "two or more albums" (three to be precise) on this important label, and therefore meets MUSICBIO #5. - Wetdogmeat (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Let us try one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Despite the lengthy discussion here, at this time there's no consensus to delete or retain the article. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Primary

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

Delete This kind of primary isn't used anywhere. The fact that approval voting could be used for primaries doesn't justify its own Wikipedia article. Markus Schulze 08:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this is essentially an ad. Honj Adrek (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, I removed the speedy tag--it does not seem an advertisement of promotion for the method, just a description. Second, that "this kind of primary isn;t used any more" is not a reason for deletion. WP is an encyclopedia, and it covers historical as well as current topics. What the article seems to need is expansion. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean to say that "this kind of primary isn't used anymore". I meant to say that this method isn't used anywhere. Actually, this method also wasn't used anywhere. Markus Schulze 06:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This type of primary has already gone through the first round of Oregon's ballot initiative procedure and is being referenced by this name, unified primary, by third party sources and the Oregon secretary of state. The name is also helpful by distinguishing it from other means by which approval voting can be implemented within a primary. This is not merely an article describing a procedure that "could" take place. Thanks for your attention. schoolglutton 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Then this article should be deleted. It can come back if and when this ballot initiative has actually been adopted in Oregon. Markus Schulze 13:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The method's current position is noteworthy enough for Wikipedia's guidelines (see comment by Nardopolo below). The article itself uses numerous references from multiple sources to support its current standing. Note again the inconsistency this would raise among existing voting method entries by arbitrarily creating a new threshold of government use. schoolglutton 03:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, a voting system is notable only if it meets at least one of the following conditions:
      1. It is used or was used in public elections or in a notable organization.
      2. It has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    Unified Primary meets none of these conditions.
    
    However, being mentioned in some newspapers is not enough. Newspapers frequently promote ad hoc methods (i.e. methods without any historic or theoretic justification) for tendentious reasons, e.g. to discredit the winner of a certain election or to help a certain politician.
    
    Being mentioned on some websites or in some self-published books is not enough since anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.
    
    Therefore, Unified Primary is not notable. I recommend that this article should be deleted. It can come back if and when this ballot measure has actually been adopted. Markus Schulze 19:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markus, a few thoughts. First, thank you for clarifying that your comments are reflective of your opinion of what is notable, versus Wikipedia's actual notability criteria, as well as what in your opinion qualifies as a verifiable source versus Wikipedia's actual verifiable source policy, specifically, earlier in the Verifiability page you quoted: Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include:university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, mainstream newspapers. Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. The statement that "Newspapers frequently promote ad hoc methods [of voting]" seems at the very least hyperbolic, if not totally unsupportable. Finally, this voting method is not, as you imply, an ad-hoc method without any historic or theoretic justification. It was characterized and found to be most efficient for simple two-stage voting systems by Fishburn and Gehrlein in a journal paper published in 1976, as cited in the article. Therefore it passes both your stated opinion of what ought to constitute notability as well as Wikipedia's actual policy. Please reconsider your recommendation of deletion.Nardopolo (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nardopolo, I doubt that the mentioned paper by Fishburn and Gehrlein recommends a method identical to Unified Primary. The abstract of this paper rather gives the impression that the number x of votes that each voter submits should be 2. (Abstract: "The best system usually has x = 2.") Sorry, but I believe that you are lying. Markus Schulze 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MarkusSchulze, Reality always ends up being a little more complex. The abstract on the web is actually a mis-scan: the "=" is a ">=" in the real paper. The full conclusion was, "Perhaps the most interesting result was that the most efficient two-stage system has the form [x,2,1]. This indicates that there is no advantage in keeping more than two candidates for the second ballot. Moreover, the most efficient value of x for the two-stage system [x,2,1] is equal to or one more than the number of candidates that a voter is to vote for on the single ballot of the most efficient one-stage system." Upon reflection, the source citation is an overstatement, and I have adjusted the article entry accordingly. Though the Fishburn paper does not make a concrete conclusion about x=m (number of candidates), the table data presented indicate that variations of x above the "best two-stage" for each sample (which varies between 2 and 4 depending on simulation parameters) have minimal impact on efficiency relative to a double-plurality (Open Primary) type system. Thus this article is still supportive of the basic thesis that approval voting with a top-two is a highly performing voting system. The more contemporary and complete simulation results by Smith of this method further validate this claim. Nardopolo (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines: Coverage in local, state and national press, description by independent voting science and voter advocacy organizations and Oregon's Attorney General constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject; significant certainly relative to other voting methods. I could not find notability guidelines specific to voting methods or election systems where the test of "in current use" or "was used in the past" are stated as requirements for voting systems notability. If such a criteria were to exist, other voting systems would fall under the scythe: Anti-plurality voting, Wright system and Dodgson's method have no current nor former use, yet provide still provide encyclopedic value. If the threshold is "in current use" or "was used in the past" at the level of a state or national parliamentary election (as the statement about Oregon adoption seems to suggest), then even more methods would have to be nixed. I was also unable to find any specific notability guidelines regarding ballot initiatives and their potential outcomes that would suggest passage is a requirement for notability - see Oregon ballot measure: all failed 2008 measures and measure 80 in 2012 have articles in the encyclopedia. Though the unified primary is under petition currently, the notability of the system is not transitory. It describes a voting system that is distinct in character from both approval voting and other forms of primaries. Per DGG's request, I have edited the Unified Primary article to expand the sourcing and context. To make a clear declaration of interest, I am the originator of the concept and chief petitioner of the initiative drive in Oregon. Nardopolo (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I opened an SPI on Nardopolo and schoolglutton --Guerillero | My Talk 06:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some question about the real-world importance and validity of the method. WP does not go by that--we are not experts, and have no way of judging intrinsic significance of things like this. The articles saying it is and is not significant in reality are equally irrelevant. I have a somewhat more limited belief than many WPedians in the absolute usefulness of the GNG in all cases whatsoever, but it is articles of this sort where we must fall back on it, for lack of anything else. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) ,[reply]
Comment As a thought of how to move towards a consensus - perhaps the issue of real concern is more about how primary systems are categorized within the Primary Election article. If that article's primary types were broken into "Current and historic primary systems" and "Contemporary primary election reform efforts" that referenced the efforts at nonpartisan reform in CA and elsewhere as well as proposed methods of primary election reform (Unified Primary, FairVote's Top 4 and any others - for example see this article that popped up just today on my twitter feed: http://ivn.us/2014/01/16/what-are-the-different-types-of-primary-elections/) and current initiatives, it might help readers understand the context better.Nardopolo (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The Frohnmayers, backers of the Oregon ballot measure, which has not cleared any significant hurdles (any registered voter could have filed such an initiative and gotten the measures this far) have used Wikipedia's article as the first hit on google for "unified primary" as a self-referencing reason in an official comment to the Oregon Supreme Court on why they should be able to use the neologism "unified primary" in the "ballot title" in Oregon. Here ironically they cite the ballot title process as for why this article needs to stay. This circular reasoning is simply circular reasoning and underscores how weak of a standing this neologism has. This is a huge disservice to Oregon voters who are unfamiliar with such a vague, new, unused, nonacademic term. Their unifiedprimary.org website has so few inbound links it gets a score of 1/100 on opensiteexplorer. The two article contributors (who are under investigation for being sock puppets) are essentially those behind "keeping" this page. The corporate-backed campaign may likely be somewhat-funded (although petitioning time is near running out and there's probably only a slim chance they can collect enough this election cycle to qualify), coming from a rich family, but that doesn't give their neologisms any importance on Wikipedia until they actually become notable. In 2008 an almost identically-worded initiative without fancy neologisms was proposed (sans approval voting) and qualified as Measure 65 and was turned down by Oregon voters by a 2 to 1 margin (I was part of the debate team against M65 and ran the main website opposing it). The official comment also says actual election science experts use this term with no references given. Wikipedia itself, if it used its own existing terms would simply describe the system as an "approval voting" "non-partisan blanket primary". The advocates are trying to pull a fast one on Wikipedia by creating a new term for a minor addition to a non-partisan blanket primary. Furthermore, there's no reason why "unified" is any more accurate than the existing well-accepted term "blanket". Wikipedia should recognize the meddling for what it is and simply delete it. Further, that one just came up with a random collection of positive sounding terms doesn't make it notable. I could go off and create the "best ballot measure ever" and "bestballotmeasureever.org" and start pushing the term for whatever my random idea was, and under the weak criteria that could be used to keep this article here, you'd have to keep a created page for the "best ballot measure ever", edited and created solely by advocates for the measure, so long as I filed paperwork on it that costs nothing (I've filed such paperwork before). Full disclosure: I have a long history in election reform and personally filed arguments against the draft ballot title for many of these reasons (they used the vague and confusing term "unified primary") and opposed the previous version filed in 2008. I have already officially informed the Oregon Supreme Court of the circular arguments being made here (regarding Oregon petition number 38) and will do it again in the comments for the next ballot-title-shopping version they filed (Oregon petition number 51, having the same defects), with a hope the Supreme Court will accept the term "Unified Primary" by actually using the term more often, sprinkled about in it. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be free of what is essentially ad PR (NPOV) and they are just trying to create a new positive sounding name for approval voting in two rounds using a non-partisan blanket primary, actually using Wikipedia as the primary source. It violates all sorts of accepted Wikipedia conventions. Ironically in 2008 they tried to co-opt the term "open primary" for their "top two" blanket primary proposal and I spent a lot of time in debates educating people on what actual open primaries were (actual partisan primaries where one can choose their membership at the moment of voting). Oregon law allows parties to choose the level of openness of party primaries -- whether one run by the state (major party primaries) or privately funded (minor parties and independents), but our 100% mail-in balloting makes 'preregistering' rather necessary, making real "open primaries" a rather moot concept (the Republicans tried to open their primary for a few offices last time around, but the Democratic Secretary of State refused to send preprinted Republican ballots to everybody who was unaffiliated before the election (what the Republicans wanted). Instead, they sent a notice to everybody that they could request a Republican ballot if they wanted to. That long aside is just to demonstrate how these campaigners have abused language in the past and look to be up to the same tricks as last time. At least they made up a new word rather than muddied up a perfectly fine phrase like last time. Sethwoolley (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal attacks aside, Woolley actually does a good job here explaining why the page ought to stay. A common practice by opponents of ballot measures in Oregon is to try to stick them with bad titles that make it more difficult for voters to understand the nature of proposed reforms. The lay voter reading an opaque ballot caption that includes "non-partisan blanket primary with approval voting" would have to conduct searches on two separate terms (neither of which individually even come close to capturing the essence of the reform proposed) then figure out by the definitions of both what is actually meant by their combination. This suggestion is not accidental: in the ballot measure 65 campaign Woolley references, opponents were successful in saddling that measure with a completely non-informative ballot title, and thus doomed it to defeat. The petitioner of that measure found in post-election polling that Oregon voters actually supported that proposed reform, but were confused by the caption on the ballot and by default voted against. The suggestion that the unified primary is simply a minor addition to a non-partisan blanket primary is not accurate. As a voting system the combination of approval voting with a top-two has fundamentally different performance characteristics than plurality voting with a top-two, as both of the voting science references that underpin this reform confirm. Finally, petitioners did not "make up" the word unified. Rather that word has a literal definition that fits this system exactly, and it was proposed by Oregon's Attorney General prior to its adoption as the moniker for the reform by petitioners. The comment about not muddying up a perfectly fine phrase is well taken. That is exactly why it is important for this reform to have an unambiguous name and an easily accessible definition that is not under the control of any one party but rather is deliberately neutral in nature and open to peer review. Since it's a little buried above, I'll state again my declaration of interest. I am the originator of the concept and chief petitioner of the initiative drive in Oregon.Nardopolo (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardopolo, can you point to specific evidence of independent reliable sources (newspaper articles, for example) making substantial use of the "unified primary" name to refer to this proposed system? --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Arxiloxos, Independent Voter News - ivn.us - has written two articles using this moniker for the system since the beginning of the year, http://ivn.us/2014/01/16/what-are-the-different-types-of-primary-elections/ and http://ivn.us/2014/01/03/unified-primary-new-way-conduct-nonpartisan-elections/ . I'm not sure their internal subscriber count, but from a quick search they have > 60,000 followers on the social networks (which seems like a lot for a news org), and their articles have had multiple reposts from other orgs. The Center for Election Science, which has been a proponent of various voting system reforms (approval voting, prominently) has adopted the pairing as well.Nardopolo (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Broo Brewery. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broo Premium Lager

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

fails WP:CORP. nothing in Australian search engine trove. And only 1 hit in major Australian news service news.com.au LibStar (talk) 13:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ the herald sun article about the unique ownership deal is sufficient to prove notability, especially given the gnews shutdown problems limiting the ability to find more sources. Lack of coverage in trove isn't surprising as that is more of an archive of much older articles. The-Pope (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but where is the significant third party coverage? One third party source does not establish notability. The fact that gnews archive is not working is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dedicated article, not just a brief mention, in Australia's biggest daily newspaper is significant third party coverage, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the new brewery article makes the most sense. The-Pope (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added more sources: some mainstream news, some from niche publications, but I think this qualifies as significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Since they've now released more than 1 beer, it might be better to rename it to the brand rather than the specific lager. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Broo Brewery. I didn't realise there was a separate article on the brewery, but merging the two articles looks sensible; there is plenty of info about the company and its actions, but a lot of overlap between sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Broo Brewery as per Copapeninsula's comments above.Dan arndt (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Dan arndt satusuro 13:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Broo Brewery (WP:PRESERVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gautam Krishna

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

Gautam Krishna is the seven year old son of two notable Indian actors. As such, the gossip rags have reported on him. He is also poised to appear in a movie which is set to be released this january. Since the movie isn't out yet, there is no critical reception of his acting yet. What we are left with to describe currently is that he is the son of the two. I don't think that is sufficient to write an encyclopedic article about. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 25 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails at WP:ENT. Apart from that, relationships do not confer notability. Google searches yield trivial coverages about the subject, nothing solid. Hitro talk 20:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bone

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

Couldnt find any sources, the ones in the article currently are not RS. WP:GNG requires three reliables, and there are none here, so it must be deleted. Beerest 2 talk 01:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not much to say on this one, it's fairly self-evident it meets deletion criteria. DocumentError (talk) 07:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can find a number of Ghits on her, and have added one of the better ones. --gilgongo (talk) 17:08, 28 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, the new sources added are not RSes. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 14:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cohen

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

Unremarkable academic and author. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:NPROF. 3 out of 6 references are to books authored by Cohen himself. RadioFan (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable academic author. The collection he edited on Derrida has 1035 holdings in libraries a/c WorldCat. Several other books have over 400 each. This is high for academic works in any subject. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews of his work: Comparative Literature[47][48], Film Criticism[49], Atlantis[50], English: The Journal of the English Association[51], ArtUS[52], Oxford Literary Review[53], MLN[54].--Colapeninsula (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- lots of reviews and many books by major presses (Cambridge, Routledge, U. Minn.). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book reviews, large library holdings, major publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Core Molding Technologies, Inc

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

No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW.} Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small local services company that has used more PR or PR-like resources, search 1 (one article says the former name was Core Material Groups but no news coverage under the name) found some results as did search 2 at The Columbus Dispatch and my final search at another newspaper found this. Even Hoss's Steak and Sea House, an article I saved in February had more local notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 07:36, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am finding nothing beyond routine appointment and result announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a NYSE listed company, and previous practice has been to include these. (NASDAQ on the other hand has so low requirements for listing that it does not imply notability . It is evident that this is one of many articles introduced by the same ring of editors, who at this point seem equally likely to be a misconceived educational project or a rather unselective paid editing firm. Nonetheless the information is objective and the firm is notable . I think objective industry standards, such as those of the NYSE, are more reliable than the GNG in determining notability . The GNG depends upon the chance of sourcing, the NYSE depends upon the business fundamentals. DGG ( talk ) 10:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Article needs significant clean up and more independent third party cites. For example, adding cites from Hoovers concerning revenue, etc. would go a long way towards meeting WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW applies here. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the assumption that NYSE = notable. There are 3000 stocks listed on the exchange give or take. As I've said in other venues, I would expect that a small but significant percentage would fail WP:GNG, WP:CORP, etc. on their own merits. I've made the comparison of NYSE stocks to "baseball players who play in a minor- and/or major-league baseball." Many such players are considered not notable despite almost all of them getting pro-forma routine coverage in some reliable source or other, be it a local newspaper or a (for now, hypothetical?) specialty publication that publishes all there is to publish about minor- and major-league baseball. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the point of WP:LISTED is that a listed company is pretty unlikely not to be notable. In other words, a listed company is notable unless proved otherwise. This company appears to have more than enough independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG, however these sources need to be cited in order to meet WP:BURDEN. I guess the real issue is whether the nominator should have met WP:BURDEN per WP:BEFORE before AfDing? VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNG-type coverage is rather easy to find [55] [56] [57] [58]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kadant

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

No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company does not assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings, press releases, and primary sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a firm going about its business but I am finding only routine announcements - nothing to indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another NYSE company from the same ring of editors. I consider such companies notable, not borderline notable. For borderline notability , I support the removal of promotional articles especially from this sort of editing. For ones that are not borderline, the company, despite its poor choice (or perhaps the choice of an external group to use it as a teaching example) nonetheless is appropriate for an article, and we should rewrite. I am, as I always have been . prepared to do that. DGG ( talk ) 10:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is a multinational company. There appears to be enough independent third party cites to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ketama (band)

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

completely nonnotable band, released 1 album, no sources found. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, fails notability guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by I feel like a tourist (talk • contribs) 16:32, 14 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried searches such as this without finding any sources to suggest WP:N notability. Delete unless someone is able to identify some third-party reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mettupalayam Coimbatore Service

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

Some indications of notability (e.g. size, when set up) but not enough to meet notability guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 26 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete There is not enough information for an article. I find that unfortunate, because I think that this and other transport companies in India are just as impt as those in places where we have better sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television Writers Vault

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

According to WP:DEL-REASON, blatant spam and advertising is grounds for deletion. The Television Writers Vault and Scott Manville articles have both been tagged as "appears to be written like an advertisement" since their creation earlier this year. It's also clear that the creator of these articles is Scott Manville who is the owner of the Television Writers Vault. The creator of the 2 articles User talk:KiraCasts's only work here at Wikipedia was to create the "Scott Manville" article and the Television Writers Vault article. Both the Scott Manville and Television Writer's Vault articles have been tagged as "appearing to look like advertisements" since their creation. Kira Casts sole work here at Wikipedia was to create these two articles which are nothing more than advertisements. I suspect also that this user is User talk:Smanville and User:72.130.156.32. And I know this may be irrelevant to the deletion policy, but this company has been blasted up and down across the Web as a site to avoid for being a scam, such as here [59] and here [60] and here [61] among slews of more negative reviews I've found on the company. Moreover, most of the sources on these articles use primary sources and sources that state nothing about the TV Writer's Vault and Scott Manville, such as this primary source at the TV Writer's Vault article used multiple times [62], this Syfy source at the TV Writer's Vault article which states nothing about the company [63], and this source that states nothing about the company [64]. I wouldn't bother clicking on the primary source links in question though as the user is likely just trying to get more hits on his website through Wikipedia. AmericanDad86 (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC) AmericanDad86 (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has problems, for sure, but nothing that can't be corrected by normal editing. Creation or editing of an article about a notable topic by an SPA is not a reason for deletion. Instead, it is a reason for explaining our policies and guidelines to the less experienced editor. Current references #8 and #9 indicate notability to me. If reliable sources report negative things about this website, then add that information to the article to make it more neutral and balanced for our readers. Why not take the deletion energy and channel it as improvement energy? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 25 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see this as advertising; it is written in such as way as to promote the siter more than to inform about it. The combination of this with the article on the individual makes the intent clear, and I think it's time we stopped compromising our guidelines, or rescuing articles in such cases. Borderline notability + promotionalism should = deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point and it is a valid one in many ways, DGG. However, COI SPA editors can and do attempt to create articles about notable topics. Unless evidence of a payment to the WMF is furnished, I believe that "advertising" is the wrong term to use. We can say that previous editors of the article have tried to use it for "promotional" purposes, and we can correct those promotionalistic aspects by stripping everything that isn't referenced to reliable sources, and admonishing any editors with a COI. This takes no more work than a conscientious deletion debate. The result is a better encyclopedia, in my view. But I have respect and understanding for the contrary opinions, and certainly won't fight to keep this specific article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just as much advertising if they pan on getting it free from the WMF as if they pay for it. Yes, it would be even worse if the WMF did accept pay. Whether there are RSs is irrelvant to promotionalism--any reasonably high quality advertising or promotion will make sure that it isn't pure puffery. The entire point of the COI provisions is to prevent our being an advertising medium for anyone. When the company or product of person or whatever is notable, there may be some promotional effect, but this is unavoidable. When they are less notable, it's avoidable.

there is an alternative position: that WP should contain verifiable information, whether of not its purpose is to promote the commercial or other interests--that we turn ourselves into a high-grade advertising medium. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reduce to a stub - and the Scott Manville article should probably become a redirect. The company has succeeded in placing a couple of shows on television; that is independently verified and should remain in the article. It has received some outside coverage, but rather weak - two tiny newspapers (refs 2 and 9), and an article in the San Diego Union Tribune (reference #8) that was not written by UT staff but rather submitted as a "special to the UT" - which may mean it's a PR piece rather than actual journalism. All the other references are self-referential. Nothing additional found in a search. The "negative reviews" are of no consequence; they are anonymous complaints at unmoderated websites. If the article is kept, I will undertake to stubify it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frosty Wooldridge

AfDs for this article:

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

Nonnotable journalist. Plenty of note in conspiracy circles, but nothing significant enough to apparently support a biographical article, save an attack piece about him from the SPLC. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm amazed this passed two previous AFDs considering the awful "keep" rationale used in them. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO generally. A bunch of ultra-conservative blogs do not equate to reliable and verifiable secondary sources. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The SPLC page is the only third-party source I could find, and that's just not enough. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A more complex case than at first appears. A HighBeam search turns up some three dozen hits, which lead to assorted newspaper articles about his anti-immigrant activism (some of them substantial, others not so much): [65] [66] [67][68][69][70]. But there are also positive reviews of his book about teens coping with their father's death [71] or [72] or [73],[74]~~[75]~~; a 2005 Christian Science Monitor article about his unusually long and widely-circulated Christmas letters [76] or [77]; and a completely apolitical biography entry from 2003 Contemporary Authors [78]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC) Corrected one of the links. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG. Sources found by Arxiloxos looks like someone notable. -- GreenC 08:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a single one of those links is about Wooldridge save Contemporary Authors, which is a database/directory of authors. How does he pass the GNG? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with that assessment of the sources. -- GreenC 19:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you expand on why? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because the sources contain significant coverage of the person and/or works, per WP:GNG. Some more than others. -- GreenC 21:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Where is this "significant coverage," specifically? Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:18, 25 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Navabi

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't really seem notable. Being mentioned in an article or two shouldn't automatically mean they're notable. The only media coverage of him is the two linked in the article. Frood 01:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is well written and is definitely not spam but I agree that Armand is not really notable, which doesn't mean the article should be deleted. The reference to this article in Nerdcore could, however, but I don't think it should either. --Slpk (talk) 14:40, 26 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 07:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he's co contributed a few books but don't see enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rating of Discoverers Minor Planet

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

This article is a maintenance nightmare because it will always be going out of date. Instead, a ling on the minor planets article (or suitable sub article) should point to the external link given in the article. Op47 (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article is not a stub. Secondly because it is based on date - a insignificant defect. The article can be rewritten so that it relied on a date. Macroemperor (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but review the article to make it more interactive with proper introduction for those unfamiliar with the subject and sorting to easily understand. Mr RD (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally inappropriate for Wikipedia. At best just a clone of material from elsewhere. At worst impossible to maintain. andy (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Andy. The creator meant well, but I still agree that the page should be deleted. —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the source of quite a lot. In its current form looks fine. Perhaps you think that in the Russian Wikipedia article is updated, and here's to an older date, and a smaller size, so are outraged. Visible reasons for delete I do not see. The grade of "This article does not cite any references or sources" can be removed. Macroemperor (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've taken a closer look at the page from the Minor Planets Centre website that this article duplicates. It seems to be prepared entirely by an automatic process. Formal updates are issued monthly, again automatically or semiautomatically. This article cannot possibly compete with a robot! It will always be out of date (it's already six months out of date), and merely a duplicate of material available elsewhere. All that is needed is a paragraph in a main article about minor planets, referring to the list as an external resource. andy (talk) 08:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that even now article interrupt. The fact that it is generated automatically not that important. It does not prevent to make changes in it. Macroemperor (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of minor planet discoverers or whatever the best astronomical terminology is (with appropriate changes to article). I don't think keeping an up-to-date chart is very encyclopedic (since it'll be almost instantly out-of-date and it is ephemeral information, while WP is supposed to be a lasting repository of information). But a list of prominent minor planet discoverers, restricted to notable entities, with some info about their discoveries, would fit list policies (unless we have this info elsewhere). The second, historical table has more lasting value as most of the information won't be out of date next month. I'm slightly concerned that the present topic isn't notable; as far as I can tell "chart of top minor planet discoverers" isn't a notable topic (another argument for rename/delete), but "minor planet discoverers" in general might be. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's a non-notable award, to begin with. But as others above say, it's an ever-changing list we have to copy from somewhere else. Mangoe (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Falah Aljibury

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

Cites a single source in which all of the allegations about his own importance came from himself and were not otherwise corroborated. It appears to be have major BLP issues, and even disregarding that has notability issues. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, undersourced and indeed BLP issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edge on the Net

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

This reads like an advertisement for a non-notable media network. The lack of references doesn't help, and a Google search does not offer evidence of media industry leadership. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. ~~Weak~~ keep. This is a noteworthy network but like most publishers they will be in want of media coverage from other publishers, because they are the competition. If sources are found then you will have proven me wrong! Sportfan5000 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I did find a couple of sources and 10 Years of Edge which makes a number of claims that would seem to 'edge' over GNG, like "EDGE launches world's first LGBT news app for iOS," "Network reaches 1,000,000 readers," and "Editors post 50,000th news story," "EDGE launches Android LGBT news app," "EDGE launches digital magazine to iPads," "EDGE launches 20+ LGBT Pride apps to iOS and Android," "EDGE reaches 2,500,000 readers." 2014, To-date LGBT news stories: 97,138. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these "claims" are backed up by any independent references. This link goes directly back to the EDGE website and not to any reliable news media. If anything, this further proves the lack of GNG. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you actually tried to verify all of these claims and found there was no mention anywhere (online at least)? Or you just followed the link I provided which is clearly a primary source? And it has never been alleged that Edge is not a reliable source on itself, or anything else, so you're certainly mistaken there. Hard to imagine they are not the authority on how many news articles they've published. Again hard to understand, unless to show them in a negative light, why their competition, the rest of the media industry, would be publishing content on them. I think sources do exist but I imagine they will be elusive, and likely under different entities' names. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also The world's largest network of gay and lesbian news and entertainment portals seems notable enough, and no one has seriously questioned or provided anything to refute that assertion, which seems abundantly true. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? No one has verified that claim. And I can name a half-dozen LGBT websites that have higher visibility and would most certainly deserve to make that grand claim. And Adoil Descended (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has disputed it besides yourself either, please present proof that there exists any LGBT networks that are larger than this one, Sportfan5000 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Please note that nothing has been presented in this discussion to independently confirm any of the claims made in the article that is being considered for deletion. This article misses WP:GNG by a mile. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good deal of sources available to help improve the quality of this article and they are easily found in simple searches online. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Where are these sources? Can you add them to the article? I did a search prior to putting this up for AfD, and I found nothing to verify the company's notability as per WP:GNG. Or am I looking in the wrong place? And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion regarding a name change for the article can continue on its talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where Are You (Bee Gees song)

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

Song not released as single. Non-charting. Non-notable. Lyrical and production info are pure WP:OR. Fails WP:NMUSIC ES &L 13:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. This is getting tedious.TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Where Are You" has been covered by Mike Furber, and his version was released as a single, and his version was charted in Australia, as I added his version on the article and added a few sources. -- PogiJmon (talk) 2:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The only possible way that this info is beneficial is for article to be renamed, and to focus around that release of of the song as opposed to the non-notable release - plus remove the WP:OR from the whole thing ES &L 18:13, 31 December 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, Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the Mike Furber version charted. A change of name is appropriate, though.Doctorhawkes (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prakhin International Literary Foundation

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

blatantly fails WP:ORG. recently created by a single purpose editor who has also been working on Prakhin International Literary Award which is also up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn -- Y not? 18:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The NJSpotlight and Jewish Standard pieces confirm the activities described in the article but are insufficient to demonstrate WP:ORGDEPTH notability, nor can I find anything further. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. In other words, due to the lack of participation this is treated as though it were an expired PROD for undeletion purposes. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Lewis (musician)

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

As far as I can tell, non-notable musician. Article is largely written by the subject, provides no references and no indication of why he is notable. Google search (careful: there are a lot of musicians alive and dead called David Lewis) reveals no third party reliable sources, just self-publicising websites. Emeraude (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Only informatiion about his work is available, no specific notability as such. Only citations like this are available. Mr RD (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lonegan

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

Fails WP:Politician. WAS mayor of a very small town for a few years, a failed candidate for governor 2 times and Senate once, only one of which was slightly notable. (And, even then, he lost by quite a bit.) PrairieKid (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I feel it is fair to note (which was just added to the article) is that Lonegan is running for Congress. Judging by the Republican-leaning district he is running in, he does have a fair chance of winning. However, I will refer to WP:Crystal and stand by my AfD. PrairieKid (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being mayor of a small town and a failed candidate for other offices does not equate to notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A legally blind mayor of an itty-bitty borough in New Jersey, but so what? Lonegan has received extensive ongoing coverage in reliable and verifiable sources for his efforts to make English the borough's official language, for his involvement in a documentary about the borough's 2003 election, his state-level leadership role in Americans for Prosperity, as well as his loveable-loser campaigns for Governor and his quixotic run for U.S. Senate vs. Cory Booker. A search counts at least 213 sources about Lonegan in The New York Times, a publication that loves to ignore New Jersey local politics, and there are thousands more articles about Lonegan in other publications. Alansohn (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say that the NY Times ignores New Jersey is complete POV. Many of those 213 sources cover the elections he was in (and lost) and generally feature his opponents, particularly Chris Christie and Cory Booker. The documentary page can still stand but being a part of one doesn't guarantee notability. Finally, the English-language thing was generally covered by local papers and still does not guarantee notability. Many non-notable people have been involved with notable events. Hell, my local high school's basketball team was covered by USAToday and Yahoo! News among others. That doesn't mean it deserves its own page. PrairieKid (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of New Jersey in the Times has been declining for decades. Perhaps Fort Lee is close enough to the New York City sphere of influence to make the Fort Lee lane closure controversy merit coverage the Times, but the state gets little routine coverage and Lonegan's coverage in the paper goes well beyond his election losses. Sure, you could pick apart each aspect of notability in isolation one at a time and then claim that nothing's left, but Lonegan's notability is based on the totality of coverage in thousands of reliable and verifiable sources of all the aspects I've identified, clearly meeting any WP:N standard. Alansohn (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If regular-Joe would-be politicians like John Crowley and Joe Plumeri are notable enough for entries, Lonegan certainly is. He's active in state politics and has appeared multiple times on statewide ballots, including once as the nominee of a major political party. He's not a particularly successful politician, but he's definitely visible.Rabdill (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Crowley is notable for his work as a geneticist. Even then, he isn't entirely notable and I might also nominate him. (I'll give it some thought.) Joe Plumerri is a very well-noted businessman, who happens to be involved in politics. He was the CEO of a massive company. Steve Lonegan doesn't have anything else besides being a local-yocal politician. PrairieKid (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lonegan is even now active in New Jersey politics, and will certainly continue so. If success in candidacy is the standard for the retention of a political figure in Wiki-bloody-pedia, how come four-time loser William Jennings Bryan has a page on this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.131.97 (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Jennings Bryan and Steve Lonegan are very different. First off, Bryan actually held acclaimed office, including secretary of state and a term as a representative, as well as running for President several times. Beyond that, he was a noted orator and author. Lonegan simply doesn't compare. PrairieKid (talk) 04:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lonegan is significant for his controversial language policies as Mayor of Bogota, significant in his leadership of the Tea Party movement in New Jersey in his role for Americans for Prosperity, and significant in his repeated political candidacies for office. Plumber (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Alansohn; I think the coverage is enough to get him past the cut based on WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has enough independent third party cites to pass WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jamia Jawaril Fatima

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

After checking what I could find in news articles, scholarly articles and general Internet searches the only thing I could come up with was more hits for the Wikipedia article itself, some listings on search engines mirroring Wikipedia and a blog. This not only fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG, but also seems like a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The Hindi version of the article is identical except that it lacks the pointless section on courses. It was created by the same author at roughly the same time and this might just be a machine translation. The Hindi version is totally lacking in sources as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some shred of an independent source is found, such that we can expand the article beyond one sentence. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 07:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A Madrasa like this would fall under WP:NSCHOOL and need not satisfy GNG or ORG requirements. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSCHOOL is a section of WP:ORG, and reads entirely as follows: All schools, including universities, colleges, high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or both. You may be thinking of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES whIch does lend a bit of support to the article. To clarify my !vote above, I would support inclusion if there were even one independent source available, precisely because of the reasoning at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. --quantumobserver ^position momentum _{entanglements} 17:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not finding anything. Also worth noting - in addition to the Hindi version of this article, the author has now created an Urdu version, also machine translated with no sources. And he deleted the AfD template I added to the English article; he didn't bother discussing here though I notified him, he just deleted the template. Given the time period in which these articles are being created, as well as the fact that the number of listings on web directories has shot up since I checked yesterday, I think it's fair to assume that maybe this school might be real, maybe not, but somebody is definitely spamming Wikipedia with the article in order to generate buzz. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out just now. We are talking about Jamia Jawaril Fatima. I accept that the information provided in this article is insufficient. But soon I hope it will be a good and helpful article. Sorry for i am new to Wikipedia please help me by checking the article now And order me what the next I should be to do. MustafaRaza 12:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted, Because there is no any fallacious context found. 1.22.66.55 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not there is "fallacious context" doesn't matter. The bottom line is that this article is about a non-notable subject (may not even be real). The only source given is one supposedly published by the subject itself. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Depends upon primary sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Tal Brenev (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis J. Posner

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

Same deletion rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner, this is a WP:BLP violating, WP:COATRACK mess that fails WP:BIO, and VoterMarch (a possible merge subject on that AFD) was recently redirected here. The first AFD was closed as no consensus primarly because it was such a mess. Delete Secret ^account 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons given by the nominator. Subject does not have significant coverage and does not meet the GNG. His activity with VoterMarch never rose to significance, and the strip club episode certainly does not confer notability. There was prior consideration of redirection to VoterMarch, but it has been deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch. The article has now been recast to focus on his criminal activity. Though the effort has been valiant, the subject is still not notable. There are many things that wikipedia is not, and Rogue's Gallery is one of them. Does not qualify for an article under WP:CRIME. (Please see the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Joseph Posner, which closed as no consensus due to the effect of edits by sockpuppets of User:Lawline. It was felt that no consensus could be reached due to the well being poisoned, and that it could be sent back to AfD once the water had had a chance to clear.) Dloh cierekim 06:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

staying at delete despite Mendaliv's exhaustative arguement. Dloh cierekim 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; this subject passes the basic notability criteria of WP:BIO, once you take into account the mainstream coverage of the arrest and disbarment, the lawsuit against Central Synagogue and New York Law Journal, and the Voter March activity. Each of these is an episode of significant coverage, and that's enough to satisfy WP:GNG when considered on the whole. As an individual known for more than a criminal act or a criminal trial, it is inappropriate to evaluate this article in terms of WP:PERP. The WP:BLP/WP:COATRACK issues are red herrings: they can be easily fixed by editing. AfD is not cleanup.
I actually had written a very nice keep rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination) (which was created in bad faith by a sockpuppet, and G5'd), which I would ask an administrator to retrieve for me (I didn't keep a copy unfortunately). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

. . . But since we talked about renominating at the last AfD a few days ago, let's look at the merits:

1. Posner is notable per WP:BIO/WP:BASIC, which require the subject to have been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." "Multiple" has, in my experience, usually meant simply "greater than one", the more the better, but Posner meets this requirement. Dealing with his suit against Central Synagogue (not in the article at this time) Posner was subject to a 539 word article in the New York Law Journal, an industry periodical (Posner later brought suit over this article for libel, which was dismissed); as well as a short piece in United States Law Week (64 USLW 3446) summarizing Posner's petition for certiorari in that case. There is also coverage of Posner's role in Voter March, especially in 2001, though admittedly it's sparse and mostly refers to Voter March. Relating to Posner's arrest, conviction and disbarment, the New York Times ran an 827 word article on the arrest and accusations; Legal Intelligencier ran a 213 word article on the arrest and indictment, which was syndicated by New York Law Journal and National Law Journal; relating to the later seized funds issue, New York Law Journal ran an 1169 word article; and there are many, many more sources on this case.
2. WP:PERP should not apply here. WP:PERP is explicitly limited to persons only known in connection with a criminal event or criminal trial. As discussed above, and in the previous AfD, Posner is known also for his involvement in the suit against Central Synagogue (which the industry press found significant enough to report on), and for his involvement in Voter March. Furthermore, the issue subsequent to the criminal trial, which involved payment of attorney's fees out of seized funds, did lead to some press, and I would argue is sufficiently outside the scope of the criminal event or trial (separate proceedings held much later, brought by the NYPD) to place that coverage outside of WP:PERP.
3. AfD is not cleanup. We have here sources of the highest quality, though we also have some tabloid sources, and editors have reasonably been concerned about this. Such concerns belong at Talk:Louis J. Posner, and not here. The conviction and WP:BLP issues are red herrings, and all such concerns can be addressed by judicious editing. Mendaliv's keep rationale arried over from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis J. Posner (2nd nomination). Dloh cierekim 14:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to disagree with Mendaliv that the overall coverage is enough to get him over the notability bar. While he's been involved in other events besides the convictions that attracted coverage, there is a lack of coverage that addresses Posner himself in the kind of depth required to write a proper biography, which has led to it becoming unbalanced. For example, an "Early life and education" section was recently removed as unsourced, that's the kind of material we'd expect to be able to source if he was genuinely notable. I don't see how it can be fixed through editing without sources that address him in the kind of detail required by WP:SIGCOV. January (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to this, I'd like to draw a distinction between WP:N, which is at issue here, and WP:NPOV, which is the concern you're raising. We have sources to get us past WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E simply based on the NYLJ coverage of the Central Synagogue case, the NY Times coverage of the arrest, and the legal industry coverage of the disbarment and the ancillary legal issues that arose from the legal cases. You're correct that we don't have sources of a WP:N quality, but that doesn't mean we can't source relatively uncontroversial things like early life and education to lower quality sources. Now, you may ask about due weight balancing concerns; the answer is we balance our coverage based on what's in the high-quality sources, but we needn't chain ourselves to those sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the notability and NPOV problems related because they have the same underlying cause, lack of sources addressing the subject in detail. As far as I'm aware (I can't see the offline sources), the only independent sources we have cover events he was involved in, not specifically him. To my mind, that's not WP:SIGCOV. January (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we're getting into more philosophical questions. The NY Times article discusses him and the things he's done, same with the NYLJ article, and others. While these are articles were written because of and do discuss events Posner was involved in, I would argue that such coverage is appropriate for establishing a person's notability, but it seems you disagree, and that's fine. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the subject recently requested deletion, as confirmed here. January (talk) 14:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS ticket noted There is nothing about this BLP nightmare of an article that could compel us to keep it if the subject has requested deletion via OTRS. Dloh cierekim 15:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to address this point: We do requested deletions for subjects, absolutely. But in this case, we have an article created by a person who has ultimately admitted at least some relationship (if not privity) with the subject (see the comments of the Lawline socks; I don't have a diff handy) for promotional purposes suddenly making use of every single procedural mechanism we have for removing content once information he doesn't like comes to light. This happened in 2011 (in part; Lawline had demanded removal of the article), and it's happening again now. I'm not saying this alone justifies keeping, rather it should be kept in mind when considering how to weigh the OTRS request to delete and the intent of the requesting individual. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Adding up the coverage of VoterMarch, Posner's role in it, and the strip club events, I think we have enough here to meet GNG. I agree that BLP is a red herring - it just happens to be the thing for which this fellow has got the most attention, and coverage did bleed out of the tabloids into the more reputable press. All that being said, I acknowledge the arguments in favor of deletion. JohnInDC (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Posner seems to derive most of his notability from local tabloids. Trying to create a neutral article from the New York Daily News and New York Post is an exercise in futility. In cases where the subject of a biography has requested deletion, I usually err on the side of privacy. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and we do not exist to catalog the sins of non-public figures. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. VoterMarch is, by our own standards, a non-notable entity; even when the article existed, it was poorly sourced. The crimes for which the article subject was ultimately convicted are essentially non-notable, as well; that he was disbarred as a result of conviction is a side point. We certainly do not want or need articles on every lawyer disbarred because of a criminal conviction. The majority of sources are, as noted by NinjaRobotPirate, hardly reliable. The ABA and LegalNews.com sources are not sufficient to meet notability requirements; these publications are biased to report convictions of lawyers. There are multiple primary sources used as references. No better sources were found. Notability not established, deletion requested by article subject. Risker (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS 2013123110007076 data (with permission to reproduce here) - a Delete request submitted on behalf of the article subject.

:To Whom It may Concern:
I am writing on behalf of my client Louis J. Posner. Please note that I represented Mr. Posner and his wife in an appeal to the New York Appellate Division in People v. Posner, 86 A.D.3d 443, 926 N.Y.S.2d 287 (1st Dept. 2011) and continue to represent them as their counsel. This request is simply an authorized request on behalf of the subject of a Biography of a Living Person under Wikipedia's guidelines WP:BLPHELP. I am requesting that the Biography of a Living Person in Wikipedia at Louis J. Posner be deleted in its entirety. WP:BLPCOMPLAIN.
Under your policy for Biographies of a Living Person, "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy... Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material." WP:BLP
I have been advised in writing by Mr. Posner who is the subject of this Biography of a Living Person that he requested that this Article entitled Louis J. Posner be deleted. Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE,
Mr. Posner is clearly not a public figure. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and he does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. WP:FAILN Posner was a relatively unknown New York City attorney from 1990 until his disbarment in 2010. Mr.Posner had co-founded the grassroots activist organization called Voter March in 2000. Posner also owned a strip club, the Hot Lap Dance Club, that was closed down by law enforcement in 2008. At best, Mr. Posner is a subject notable for only one event. "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view." WP:BLP1E
"A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." WP:BLPCRIME The article on Louis Posner states that he was arrested for money laundering, but all of these charges were dismissed. Posner pleaded guilty to a single count of promoting prostitution, and was given probation, and he did not serve a prison sentence. Mr. Posner was never charged with or convicted of any crimes in any federal court. The Wikipedia article on Louis Posner makes reference to various articles from the tabloid newspaper, NY Post which are disparaging and sensationalist WP:BLPGOSSIP. These articles also mention his wife by name who was arrested for money laundering and promoting prostitution. All charges against Mrs. Posner were dismissed and her criminal record has been sealed to protect her privacy.WP:BLPNAME
Based on the foregoing, the Wikipedia article on Louis J. Posner should be deleted in its entirety.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jonathan S. Gould, Esq. Attorney at Law
New York, NY"

I would add that the poster sent that text in with the wikilinks already formed, they have obviously had a careful read of the policies. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my vote! this time. I've deleted better articles than this. If we had an article for everyone who ran a dodgy strip club, we could probably make a serious increase in the number of articles. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to note, without commenting on the merits of the request itself, that Mr. Gould's statement here is tantamount to an admission that his client is Lawline/What88 et al., insofar as it confirms Posner is the source of earlier requests for deletion. Perhaps it doesn't have bearing on this article's deletion, but it's something that I think we should note. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While no one has ever exasperated me with their antics as Lawline has, and while his attendant melodrama has been irksome, and while it would have been simpler to just go through OTRS in the first place, this in no way lessens the lack of notability. This whole charade leaves me pondering the many connections that could exist off-wiki. All irrelevant to the discussion here. Dloh cierekim 21:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lawline would have also made it simpler by not creating and puffing up articles that extolled VoterMarch and Louis Posner, strenuously defending their notability and inclusion, then completely reversing course and demanding their deletion when it became clear that he could not control his whitewash and PR efforts. He's lucky that Posner and VM are of such questionable notability. Otherwise the articles would be here to stay forever. JohnInDC (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that - if one views from creation at 16:11, 23 March 2013‎ through to page blanking at 08:20, 9 April 2013 - the edits were all by What88 (except for a minor few deletions). A G7 at this point could have been proposed. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

… had we realized in April, rather than December, that that was a puppet. By that later time there was a lot more water under the bridge and a G7 harder to assert. JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last time I suggested a redirect - I'm changing my position based on the subject's request, per WP:BLPDELETE. If we remove the VoterMarch bit, we have a wholly negative bio. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vapid nudge-nudge-wink-wink true crime nonsense. BLP whining is neither here nor there. Not an encyclopedic topic. Carrite (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 03:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shredz Supplements

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

declined prod. Fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I only found the one article about it, not counting their press releases. I doubt that multiple reliable sources are out there.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Created and maintained by two WP:SPAs.LM2000 (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sole reference merely quotes claims by the company founder and isn't a WP:RS. I'm not finding anything about the firm other than its trademark registration (filed July 2011, granted Aug 2012, as a query on start-up date has been flagged in the article). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Speedy Delete - Advert. Most of the "celebrity" spokespersons are redlinks.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 03:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement for a non-notable company. Alexius08 (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, promotional article on non-notable product. Article creator has also created Arvin Lal on company founder, at present PRODed as unsourced bio.TheLongTone (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A pretty clear G11. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Press releases abound, but not finding reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ShopInterest

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

fails WP:CORP. potential advert as created by a 1 edit editor. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am not finding anything beyond the normal press coverage stirred by a start-up. No evidence of attained notability to meet WP:NWEB / WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this passing WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 06:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 11:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

EatAds

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

fails WP:CORP. created by an editor who has only worked on this article and the related business Dropmysite. LibStar (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No real indication of importance. The edit summary used in the page creation hints at using Wikipedia for possible advertising or promotion (I've seen it with other articles). United States Man (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Open and shut case of promotion.LM2000 (talk) 06:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software company of unclear notability; provided refs are PR, company sites, or blogs, typically just quoting company comments, not significant RS coverage. A search did not reveal additional RS coverage. As above, possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any material to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monogamous Gay Australia

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

no evidence for notability from a RS. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, organization appears to have stimulated both controversy and commentary from across multiple different types of sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt. Could you post some of the sources covering the group and/ or the controversy about it? I wasn't able to find much. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to have only attracted the attention of one news organisation. This means it would fail the significant coverage criteria and is therefore not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sustained notability. Nsw2042 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In addition to the argument to retain the article by User:Candleabracadabra, the nominator has essentially withdrawn the nomination in their comment below stating "speedy keep", although not explicitly (such as stating "withdrawn" or striking the nomination). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Obermoeller

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

This is an article about a non-living person, so I especially hoped to find more info about her. There are snippets for several books that seem to announce exhibition showings, and nothing that gets to her notability. I could find no further information in news, HighBeam, web, etc. reliable sources. Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. CaroleHenson (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:21, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Some coverage here. Not famous but received some recognition and awards. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:10, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no strong opinions on this one way or another, so I am happy to go back and get the bits of information that is out there about here and expand where I can.--CaroleHenson (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This has been out here for awhile, has been relisted, and the only vote is a "weak keep". Can we just move this to Wikipedia:Speedy keep?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Over Maddie

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

No sources outside of the show's premiere date and cast can be found, other than IMDb and youtube Finealt (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Courcelles 17:25, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm running into some issues as well, but I do see where the show was nominated for an Astra Award last year. I'm still digging so I haven't made an official decision yet but there has to be more out there. If not, there should be an appropriate redirect target since most Disney channels have a list of programming out there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I'm not sure that an Astra nomination is enough to drive notability, given the fishbowl-size of the Australian straight-to-cable TV production industry. That said, there is some independent coverage here, but not enough I think to satisfy the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I found some viewership figures and a newspaper review, both are from realiable sources to establish notability. Keenan202 (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

St. Ita's GAA

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaelic Athletic Association is made up of hundreds of small clubs such as this one. Many of these have articles of less detail in Wikipedia. I ffel it is especially unfair to delete this club with the emergence of Seamus Harnedy as a major star. If this club were to be deleted then what criteria would be use for GAA clubs? Many of the greaterst players come from clubs such as St. Ita's. That is what makes the GAA so special. Pmunited (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Salazar

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

Insufficient evidence of passing WP:NBIO. LukeSurl^{t c} 16:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any sources to prove notability. --Jakob (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Swain

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little or no coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 08:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would suggest that being senior reporter for a natioanl news programme made him notable. The lack of references implies tagging for improvement, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is little or no coverage outside the Swain article (if I were basing my position on the article alone, I would vote "speedy delete"). If you can find a "significant" level of reliable coverage online or elsewhere, then please do so, and feel free to share. Levdr1lp / talk 00:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - his profile suggests he will have featured prominently on TV news (unfortunately, or fortunately, I don't watch ITV morning news). He was gleefully shamed by most of the major UK newspapers in October 2009 for swearing loudly during a live TV broadcast (doing a bunjee jump, not quite Bagdad, but hey!) [79] [80]. His marriage, with some biographical info, was featured in the newspaper of a major UK city [81]. Sionk (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with a distinct possibility of a merge. A merge discussion can continue on an article talk page. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes

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

Gives undue weight to the Rotten Tomatoes rating. Fails WP:GNG also, all sources are primary or dont say much about the tomatometer. Beerest 2 talk 18:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poor delete rationale. Rotten Tomatoes is clearly notable and all references are not from primary sources. Numerous movies sites (and Wikipedia articles) use Rotten Tomatoes ratings. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is it undue weight on Rotten Tomatoes? A film having a 100% rating aggregated from numerous professional reviews is very noteworthy in the film world and very rare. Previous problems with attempts to merge into main article and the length of the list means that this well-sourced list is appropriate. I would also encourage a List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is also noteworthy I think. Look about film articles on wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes rating has become an integral part of film reviewing and as a cinema buff I think it's useful to have a list which are ranked the highest on the website which have universal positive reviews. Not to mention that it gets over 11,000 hits a month and is obviously something quite popular with people looking to find films.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Tomatoe/MC are better as an aggregate resource than any individual. It is just a list of existing articles, all of which are clearly notable.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 23:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Undue weight does not seem a good rationale in this case. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It needs clearer criteria. A new, unfavorable review could be added at any time, knocking an article off the list. Hence there's no way of knowing that the list is accurate (i.e. that a film on the list actually has a 100% rating at present). Therefore, we should choose a particular date and call it something like "films with 100% as of January 1, 2014". --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be good, I'll add that, thanks. As you can see by the latest IP edits though the non 100% listings are typically quickly spotted. All of the ones recently removed were 100%, now 98% because of a negative review.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above meant a negative added to RT. If a reviewer added a single negative review, even years or decades after release, it would change the 100% rating. It is a problem on RT's end though. What if someone came in now and dinged Birth or Casablanca, decades after the fact. Perhaps something along the lines of 100% after one year (if there was a way to determine time) as most modern movies would be reviewed in a timely fashion--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know what you mean. I'm not sure how you'd gauge it though. Mary Poppins for instance had a 100% listing for years. A 100% listing is still notable though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since such a list appears notable per WP:NOTESAL, seeing the inline citations used. However, I recommend rewording the lead section to explain that the Rotten Tomatoes staff assesses if a review is positive or negative (never mixed). Maybe also mention the kinds of reviews that Rotten Tomatoes aggregates since it includes periodicals and certain blogs. I also think that the list should be in table format so it can include the number of reviews for sorting. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The list also needs to be cleaned up. It looks like Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz do not belong here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those are perfect examples of the dings to 100%. The single Rotten reviewer of Oz is a "Top Critic" but only has 7 reviews. Of the 3 Wind Rottens, one of them has just a single review.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 14:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, I'm no fan of the list, which is why I proposed the conditional language. The list as a topic seems to meet notability guidelines, however. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rotten Tomatoes (my favorable vote) or Keep: The information should be here. I am not doubting that. It's just that all the sources are proving is that Rotten Tomatoes is notable IMO not particularly this topic. This list of the article and would seem better as a section to me on the RT page (which I recall it being once and looking fine to me). Of course (for once) I am in a minority. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge The topic is just about notable since films that have scored 100% have been considered as a "set" by several—albeit low-rent—articles: [82][83][84]. The list has just enough going for it to exist; however, I think the merge suggestion above is the better option. Betty Logan (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia such as Wiki and is an invaluable reference tool. Keep or merge, but certainly not deletion. Manxwoman (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This site gets over 11,000 hits a month. This list is helpful to those looking for a list of films which have the rare 100% rating. Cassianto ^Talk 18:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this list is copied from this primary source, so it isn't exactly hard to find. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only partly, it contains others and will grow increasingly as people find them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did initially add it to the main article but it was reverted, somebody claimed UNDUE or something. I'd rather merge it too and also create a 0% list. I agree that only films with over 20 reviews should be included and some with under may have crept in and should be removed. It is isn't the best list Erik but I and 11,000 others a month are obviously coming here looking for a comprehensive list.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I would like to make it clear in the introduction that the list does not include items like Gone with the Wind because of a single review out of a hundred or so preventing any such listing. Maybe we should link to List of films considered the best in a "See also" section. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that bugs me because some of the films really should have a 100% rating! Some of my favourite films (like Sunset Boulvard, Roman Holiday and 2001: A Space Odyssey etc) tend to have a 96-98% rating but there's always an idiot reviewer or two who have to ruin it!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And I would also encourage the creation of List of films with a 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes article, which has been mentioned above. I'm still not sure how this brings undue weight onto Rotten Tomatoes. Actually if this was merged into Rotten Tomatoes (or List of films considered the best, which is a different topic altogether) it would overtake the article. Best to leave as is.LM2000 (talk) 03:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does not look like a overtaken article to me at all. Definitely when the Rotten Tomatoes article is already kind of small. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 04:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right, that doesn't look like I expected it too. Still a bit undue for my tastes though.LM2000 (talk) 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main Rotten Tomatoes article; while worth mentioning somewhere I think this list is a bit too much for a standalone article, especially since it's basically one primary source being regurgitated. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps User:Reatlas has something to say about that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As has been mentioned, this list may change on the RT website over time and it's unlikely that it would be properly updated on Wikipedia as it changes. A subsection on the main RT article titled "Films with a 100% rating" could contain this article's lead and a link to the RT website's page with the 100% list. This way, the reader is given useful context and an explanation of the subject while we avoid having a list that would likely become bloated and/or outdated. I think it makes sense to simply provide a direct link to the list's source which serves as the sole reference to each entry anyway which would always be automatically updated. 24.55.216.27 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apart from nothing else, the nomination rationale isn't policy based; the AfD shouldn't have been relisted, as there are no delete !votes, and the merger proposal could carry on via the talk page. Beyond that, the list appears to be notable, and very few entries are likely to fall off the list; equally, concerns of bloat are going to be amplified if a merger occurred. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I call for this AfD to be closed. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per Lukeno94. This is the worst re-listing I've ever seen. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to assume that the AfD was relisted to break the rough tie between keeping and merging since per WP:AFD, a closing admin should assess the consensus to keep, delete, merge, redirect, or transwiki. It would be worth engaging the editors who supported merging to change to keeping it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should be closed as a keep since it satisfies notability. I think there is some merit to the idea of merging but that should be a separate discussion if anyone is particularly inclined to go down that route. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more like, "While I have you all here..." to basically conclude the issue through this discussion rather than create a separate one. WP:AFD recommends merge-specific discussions to be set up in their own way, but since deletion was one possible outcome (as opposed to supporting or opposing a merge), we are here. For what it's worth, I think it is worth keeping as separate because it's not really a natural list to be found in the aggregator article, and there could be more lists like for 0% movies. With a stand-alone list, we can at least table the movies and make them sortable in different ways. This would take up more space than appropriate at the main article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MRI Software

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

Current article does not demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG and it has been tagged as such for awhile. PROD was contested awhile back. Recommend either improving the article in the next 7 days, if someone is willing to take the time to update it but can't do it in the next week, userfication until the article is improved, or "soft deletion" without prejudice if a properly-sourced article that clearly indicates that the company meets Wikipedia's notability criteria is created. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 19:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been updated with 2013 information as of December 21, 2013. Recommendation is to keep the article as it has been updated several times over the last few months. References links are valid from corporate websites as well as outside sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwareguy88 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the awards was a very local award given to 99 businesses in Northeast Ohio. The other two awards cited press releases, which are not reliable sources. These two awards appear to be "industry awards" not generally known to the "outsider" public. As such, they contribute little if any to notability. Of course, even to the extent that they do demonstrate notability, a reliable, independent source is still needed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Links have been updated to the industry websites that reference the awards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwareguy88 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The newly-added references are primary sources, which is fine for demonstrating the fact that the awards were given but, absent some indication that these awards are significant, they have limited utility in demonstrating that the entity meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. I have expanded the citations so it is clearer who is giving these awards. Both entities issuing the awards share common ownership. It is unclear if the entities have an "arms-length" relationship with each other or if they should be treated as a single entity recognizing this company in different ways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 21 December 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, Mkdw ^talk 20:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem with the company name is that it's generic and searching for MRI Software returns links that discuss magnetic resonance imaging software. Five google pages in, I found only a few links directly related to the company and none of them confer notability on the subject. This unfortunately forces us to rely on the references in the article, which also don't show the notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Comment Walter claim above is completely false. If you do a search for MRI Software on any major browser (Google, Yahoo, Bing) the entire first page is related to MRI Software, the property management company. If you just search for a term like MRI, sure the magnetic resonance comes up. The claim above is completely false. In fact, nothing related to medical MRI shows up until page 4 of a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Softwareguy88 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 January 2014 @Softwareguy: I replaced "keep" with "comment" because you already expressed your desire to keep this article earlier in the discussion. Only one "keep" or "delete" or similar per person per discussion, please. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it's not completely false. I did a search for MRI Software in Google, which is a search engine, not a browser. The entire first page contained 10 links. First link was MRI Software | Property Management Software and Investment. Second was Wikipedia. Rounding out that page: "MRI Software LLC | LinkedIn", "MRI Residential Management Software", "Metro Property Services Selects MRI Software's Commercial", "MRI Software - Solon, Ohio - Corporate Office | Facebook", "MRI Software LLC: Private Company Information - Businessweek" And the further I dig the more hits I got like "Measurement of brain volume using MRI: software, techniques". None of the ones related to the subject establish notability. The others are just problems. In short, as I stated above, I found only a few links directly related to the company and none of them confer notability on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is unclear what significance the listed awards have with respect to demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. As a comparison from another industry, local television-news anchors whose strongest "claim to fame" is having won a "state Emmy Award" for television news journalism are generally not considered notable merely because of winning that award, as winning such an award neither generates sufficient additional significant coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines nor is it generally only given to people who have already met Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Contrast this with the national Emmy Awards which in most cases both increase the amount of significant coverage for the award-winners and (by coincidence) are typically awarded to people who have already received enough coverage to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My rule of thumb on awards is that they are to be considered significant if the awards themselves have notability. On the other hand I've never actually put this to the test - but if an award is notable enough to be considered a reliable source and presents a justification and several paragraphs about the award nominees, then an award nomination can be a reliable source even if the subject didn't win the award. These awards appear not to have their own pages, so I can't by my rule of thumb treat them as reliable - and therefore have to discount them. (There are plenty of awards that really aren't notable or reliable). Neonchameleon (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a tough one for me. I feel that notability of the award depends on the industry. The example above about the "Emmy Awards" is a hard one to use, since everyone is familiar with that specific award. In looking at the award mention above, it appears to be a legit award and deserves recognition for that company. However, since I am unfamiliar with that industry, it's hard for me to judge the relevance. I get the sense that it is significant in that industry, thus should be considered in this case BroncosfanDRC (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to no input other than the nomination, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shariyaan

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

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY. Has no article in an Indian language. Taking to AfD rather than prod as may have missed something in another language. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 30 December 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions are mostly in the vein of WP:WAX or otherwise not very persuasive. Sandstein 10:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Håvar Mjeltevik

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

Biography of a person who sadly does not seem to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I read Norwegian, so I have been trying to find more sources, but there just isn't significant coverage of him, that I can find. The existing references consist of a) a couple of articles about the fact that Mjeltevik was part of a team of students that won a stock market contest in 2010 (the assertion of "multiple top results" is not verified in the sources), b) a business listing for Mjeltevik's company, and c) an article about a related but different topic, which mentions his name in passing. There are also a couple of links to articles written by Mjeltevik, but all these taken together do not come close to showing notability. bonadea contributions talk 19:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given that not many people on the English Wikipedia know how to read Norwegian, I think it should be deleted. Leoesb1032 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I do think that the article should be deleted, I actually do not agree with that particular reason. Because most people on Wikipedia can't read Norwegian, it's all the more important that subjects they can't read about in the original language be covered in English, per WP:BIAS. But the subjects still have to be notable - the notability criterion is neither more nor less strict for non-Anglosphere subjects. --bonadea contributions talk 19:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Mjeltevik is not the king of Norway, but I think he has his place on Wikipedia, specially with his writings and academic work. If you go this site: http://www.ungeaksjonaerer.no/tidligere-vinnere/ you will see that he his responsible for "multiple top results" with the group "Aksjegruppa HVE". Many biographies on Wikipedia has lower significance and usefulness that his.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Norwaytrader (talk • contribs) 20:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)— Norwaytrader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Yes from the start I agreed with you, Bonadea, but now the article has a lot more stuff in it and better references. I prefer to not delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.95.57 (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not cut it. 21:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

CommentDo you have some examples of a good one in the same category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.95.57 (talk) 21:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep:~~ With reference to this article: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Petter_Sissener I can't see that the article about Mjeltevik is poorer. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.15.95.57 (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two things: other articles can never be used as an argument, and secondly, please only make one "keep" comment. This is not a vote but each individual contributor should only make one bolded "keep" or "delete" contribution. I have stricken your second "keep" above. --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If you all see the other articles for deletions, this article is better.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎95.34.191.135 (talk • contribs) 03:11, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that on no.wikipedia, an admin speedy deleted the corresponding article about this person for lack of relevance. --bonadea contributions talk 10:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, but now the article is much better, better references, links. You can not compare to separate versions.95.34.191.135 (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit other people's comments as you did here - as noted above, each contributor only gets one "keep" or "delete" contribution in the discussion. In addition, I notice that you edited 46.15.95.57's comments earlier; it was obviously done in good faith, but please refrain from changing other people's words, because it can lead to annoyed feeings. Anyway, the article here on the English-language Wikipedia still does not show that the person is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability (it has not changed substantially since the article nomination), and it is relevant to this discussion to note that the Bokmål Wikipedia also did not consider him notable. In any case, I have no idea what the Bokmål version of the article looked like, and I assume you don't know either - as you say, the point is not to compare different versions of the article, but only to determine whether the subject of the article is notable. --bonadea contributions talk 16:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I kind find very little sources and being chairman of "Young chairholders" which is a kind of student organization for people interested in finance isn't a very important position that indicates notability. Iselilja (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 04:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CEO of a non-notable trading firm with a past of having received a non-notable student award and being involved in a non-notable association. Fails WP:ANYBIO. AllyD (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:BIO. 3 of the sources relate to routine student achievements. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to no input other than from the nominator, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Bhatt

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

Fails WP:NBIO —Ryulong (琉竜) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shit I thought I hit the prod tab and not the AFD tab. Fucking Twinkle. Anyway, this actor's biography does not meet the requirements of WP:NBIO. He is claimed to be the Hindi language voice actor for several anime but this is not represented by his biography.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 04:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can this just be made the WP:PROD I meant for it to be?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, on top of the numerical advantage the delete arguments look stronger.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect Karma

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

The article is totally unsourced. I doubt that "Perfect Karma" is actually a legitimate Buddhist or Hindu concept - for all the evidence in the article, the idea could even be a hoax. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:TNT. I see uses of the phrase but not so that I am sure that an article could be written from them; however, what I find is certainly inconsistent with what this stub says. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Found over 400 results on books alone. The article has to be enlarged, I can do that. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The simple fact that the expression "Perfect Karma" can be found in sources does not indicate that there is actually a coherent subject than an article could be written about. Would Bladesmulti elaborate on why he thinks "Perfect Karma" is in fact a legitimate Hindu or Buddhist concept? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a usual term, i guess. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you really come up with nothing better than that? It doesn't answer Mangoe's delete vote. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Karma is a legitimate Hindu or Buddhist concept. Perfect Karma is neither a legitimate Hindu or Buddhist concept nor a well-known neologism.Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Agree with User:Redtigerxyz. Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

54 Seconds

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

Non-notable band, only coverage seems to be local. One of a huge number of articles created by editor using at least one other account to overwhelm wikipedia with BeeGees related fancruft. TheLongTone (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages, same band under another name[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Several articles found from Austin Chronicle and Austin Post, plus a bio and review from Allmusic. --Michig (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Austin Chronicle is local coverage, I think something rather more substantial is needed. There are billions of local bar bands. They are not notable.TheLongTone (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a band bio at Allmusic. However, suggest redirect related articles Jez Spencer and 4-Track Mind to band article. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query Does listing on one website make this failed band notable?TheLongTone (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 04:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect related articles. Having a biography on Allmusic is pretty big. The fact that an artist is listed on Allmusic is often used to help establish notability, let alone having a bio, and an album with bio. There are other sources, but I think searching for them may be complicated by the name. For instance, 54 Seconds supposedly has a good presence in Boston and in England, but searching for “"54 seconds" Boston” will return mostly sports-related content from statements like "with only 54 seconds left to go in the game", etc. Similarly, and pages with blog-related content (comments section) will show up with "posted 54 seconds ago", when Google happened to crawl the page. I do however feel Jez Spencer and 4-Track Mind should redirect to 54 Seconds, which in itself offer some expansion to the article. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are not many things that make me come over all patriotic, but the suggestion that this band have a following in the UK brings me out in hives. We are perfectly capable of producing out own rubbish. I guess I have to bow to the prevailing opinion, but I do maintain that what career this band has is entirely down to family industry connections and the probable fact that Mr Gibb Junior does not need to earn a living.TheLongTone (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

afds are linked prominently atop the subject page (usually, as in this case, the top search engine result for the subject). & afds are open sometimes for weeks on end (itself unfair to living subjects, in my view). Therefore afds are never an appropriate venue for negative subjective opinions. The fact that wp allows literally anyone to publish an article does not give its editors the right to trash the subject. Given the openess of the model, courtesy & respect for article subjects should be required at afd. If on reflection you wish to remove your comment, as I hope, please remove this one with it. 78.19.106.134 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EP3 (Pixies EP)

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

Wp:Crystal - future release with minimal coverage S Philbrick (Talk) 20:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Although this EP appears set for future release, current coverage only amounts to it being "on the way"; does not yet appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gong show 23:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a hoax. The release date is made up. The references support nothing. This should have been a speedy delete. The only true bit about the article is that there probably will be a Pixies EP3 at some point, but the article should not be created before it's released. (Note: a similar hoax on EP2 was created and deleted well before its release.) – McDutchie (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 04:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assassins (band)

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

Not notable, references are either press releases, tour announcements or promotional. Page appears to be promotional, perhaps created by band's manager. WP:BAND criteria not met.Skrelk (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems no more or less notable than any of the other bazillions of obscure band articles. They have at least produced some music. --gilgongo (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to meet notability criteria per WP:BAND Skrelk (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that these guys meet WP:BAND at present. AllMusic, which is a pretty good place to start when trying to determine notability of Western popular music, has a short biography of a band with the same name, but that appears to be about a different band entirely. — sparklism ^hey! 07:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply self-finaced, self-published music. This is not a notable band and had no independent sources. Fails to meet WP:BAND H6PAYH (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Fails WP:BAND. STATic message me! 03:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are provided for the information presented. This band meets number 7 of the criteria for Detroit post-hardcore, which has been sourced in the article appropriately:

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

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

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

The result was delete. The argument that the sourcing (from 1930!) is too thin to meet WP:V for this sort of topic is compelling. Sandstein 10:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantida (ancient city)

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

This was the subject of an AP article in 1930. That article can be found at [85]. Other than that I can find virtually no sources, RS or otherwise. The second paragraph has no sources about the subject, only about rubber producing. Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I came across a couple of other brief mentions of the Portuguese Atlántida myth, but nothing that could be used to cite or flesh out the article beyond mentioning that such a myth exists. This sparse material, even if something reliable can be produced to support what is there, would better be added into the Atlantis#Other locations section of the Atlantis article. • Astynax ^talk 21:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Unless it is notable as a hoax -- If this is not a 1930 hoax, there ought to be some other source on the subject than two newspaper articles. If someone really found Phoenician hieroglyphics in America, it would be an outstandingly important find, and I would have expected more research to have followed, but we apparently have none. There is another problem: the Phoenicians used an alphabetic script, which is among the ancestors of the Greek and Latin ones. I conclude that this is the 1930 equivalent of WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Guerillero | My Talk 06:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thakur Deepak Singh Kavi

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

Article about a seemingly non-notable author. Sources seem to mainly be personal websites (blogspot) and unrelated webpages (uptu). Seeminlgy promotional, probably created because "he is going to start his own [online] publication". Benboy00 (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article contributed by a WP:SPA and since the AfD notice was placed, it has been repeatedly removed by an IP WP:SPA. AllyD (talk) 18:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article which features the subject's schooldays and relations with classmates and teachers, all unsourced, usually indicative of autobiography and seldom material which features as important if a subject has actual attained notability. Many of the article's references serve only to confirm the existence of the schools he attended and say nothing about the subject himself; further references are to online published poems and blogs. The linked Hindi Wikipedia biography appears no better sourced. I see no evidence of attained notability though will revise that view if someone identifies relaible published Hindo evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is our biographee. This page strongly suggests that he is another of so very many "emerging" talents prematurely included in en-Wikipedia. (He's in hi-Wikipedia too, seemingly with no sources.) Once he has emerged, his notability will be apparent; until then, delete. -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable poet. As the above user said, once he gains popularity, the this article could be hold. ///EuroCarGT 04:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Eady

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

A user, User:Daneady, who appears to be the subject, has requested deletion of the page in an edit summary. As stated at WP:BLP: "If a dispute centers around a page's inclusion (e.g., because of questionable notability or where the subject has requested deletion), this is addressed via deletion discussions rather than by summary deletion." If needed, the Subjects Contact Us form could probably be requested of the user to verify his identity. The content was replaced and the user provided a link to IMDb, which isn't considered a reliable source.

Also, the article to begin with was not very well sourced; it did not use any inline citations, and all of its references were either inaccessible or of questionable reliability. See the page history for these links. This in itself is in violation of WP:BLP. After a Google search, I could not find any reliable sources about the subject. – T C Memoire 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – T C Memoire 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – T C Memoire 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of whether the requester is the subject, the subject is not notable.Flat Out let's discuss it 05:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a fairly straightforward case even without the subject's request, which only adds extra weight. Frickeg (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a few parts in various short films, a stint as a writer in a large newpaper but no coverage about him. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican Splendors

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

User:Danny lost ("Trespassers william") nominated this article for deletion more than a week ago, but due to a complicated series of history moves and problems with the code, I've asked and gotten his permission to delete the AFD and start all over again. The nomination got no input until a few hours ago, so it was relisted today. Danny's rationale is as follows:

PR. Minor old tour, hardly any media coverage.

Below the deletion sorting, I've reproduced the vote that got added a few hours ago. I'm completely neutral on this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google searches yield plenty of hits (82,800 or 35,900 or 7,860 depending), indicating notability. The exhibit set attendance records in at least one of the cities it toured. The article has a start on being well-referenced. It admittedly needs work to minimize the tourist brochure/PR prose (which I will start on soon), but it contains information I never knew, e.g., Italian law prohibits historic art pieces being outside Italy for more than 12 months at a time; some of the objects exhibited had never been out of Italy before; some of the exhibit items are not even on display in Rome when they're in Rome, etc. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the end of the original nomination. Please continue to add comments below. Nyttend (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments by IP 71.178...: After the article survives this AfD, it needs to be renamed Vatican Splendors, without the, definite article. A little research shows the exhibit has been around since 2007–2008 and has appeared in Cleveland, St. Paul, St. Petersburg, St. Louis, Pittsburgh and Ft. Lauderdale in the USA. It is now apparently exhibiting in Sao Paulo, Brazil. No exhibit containing the relics of Sts. Peter and Paul, some Giottos, some Berninis, a Guercino and the ~~Mandolin of Odessa~~ Mandylion of Edessa could be described as minor. Along with the press releases of the exhibitor (Evergreen) and info from the website vaticansplendors.com, there is a 160 page catalogue/guide to the exhibit available from booksellers listed at Amazon.com. There are also very likely newspaper articles about the exhibit from the visited cities (a quick search at the Cleveland Plain Dealer website shows 15 mentions of VS). PS: Thanks, Nyttend. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of significant touring exhibition. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dedicated coverage in multiple secondary sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:71.178.50.222 asked me if the original article had a talk page. I'm not seeing any pages that existed on this subject, other than the current one — in other words, there can't have been any talk pages except Talk:Vatican Splendors and Talk:The Vatican Splendors, and nobody's ever created either of those. Perhaps the question meant to ask if the previous AFD had a talk page? That, too, doesn't seem to have existed. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nyttend. In my experience, an article without a talk page is very unusual, so I sort of assumed that there was one that just got lost in the shuffle. No big deal; we'll start a talk page. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :). Glad to see I have something to learn about seeing beyond the press releases. Roll on. trespassers william (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You da man, Danny-william! (You'll get your reward in Heaven). --71.178.50.222 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The website of the application does not yet prove that it is notable, we need links to independent reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forma Lms

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

Written like advertisement. Company not notable. Cheers AKS 09:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Forma Lms is not a company. It is an open source LMS software application like Dokeos.--Iniciativass (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only good sources I could find are blogs and instructions for installation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Keep - Please note the links to the official sources (official website, active community with hundreds of discussions, and sourceforge project with hundreds of downloads)listed at the end of the article Pastoweb (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (Article creator)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Rigby

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

A wildflife artist whose reputation (and extreme hyperbole on his website) seems to be based on winning 3 awards at an exhibition of the Wildlife Art Society. This doesn't seem to be a notable society and therefore the awards aren't at all major either. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 13:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The listed achievements (and press attention) do not seem to rise to the level needed to pass WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeglavi

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

Mineral water drink article, unreferenced, and I am not seeing any good reliable references. Half a year of outstanding notability and COI notice. I am afding it instead of prodding as 1) perhaps a Russian speaker can find sources and 2) I believe the creator may be topic banned from contributing, even if s/he wanted to participate. Can this be saved, or will we delete it as a commercial spam? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:

Ban on Georgia's Borjomi water to start May 7, Nabeglavi May 10
Nabeghlavi enters Russian market
Nabeghlavi to Enter Russian Market
[86] (about the source)
Increased Water Fee to be Reflected on "Nabeghlavi " and " Borjomi" in January (scroll to end of page)
[87], [88] (scroll to end)
Georgian sparkling water Nabeghlavi seeks to re-enter Russian market (appears to be reliable, per [89])
Russian ban on Georgian mineral water (mentions)
Russia Cuts Off Georgian Water and Wine (mentions)

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:16, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nabeglavi is very notable drink just like Borjomi (water). Jaqeli (talk) 12:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sold in English speaking countries, so it fails as spam. Appears to have enough third party sources to meet WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Yunshui as copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 16:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Psych Central

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of websites. Of the references given, one is to a paper written by Grohol, one is to the site itself, one merely gives Psych Central as the source of some info it's giving, and one is a Page Not Found. Myself, I found just two vaguely substantive mentions of it, one about a business deal they were involved in, the other by a blog's "admin" (author unidentified) recommending the site to readers. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page not found was because it was removed by the anon. Why did you forgot the book?: "It is an award winning site created in 1997."Igottheconch (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was and am still able to view the book quite well. In fact a second check of the body reveals that the chapter in which Psych Central is mentioned is written by John Grohol, Psych Central's founder. This means that it cannot be used as a source to establish notability because it is a primary source. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page not found was because it was strangely removed by the anon, a minute before you created this AFD. Why did you forgot the book?: "It is an award winning site created in 1997." BEfore you put this article up for deletion, did you check the link above this AFD? books · scholar · JSTOR -- The AFD template mentions ] 2,360 books which mention this organization, 1050 scholarly references, and 3 JSTOR references. I want to assume WP:Good Faith please lets close this AFD. Igottheconch (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not establish notability within the article by citing a few of those 3413 sources. I've encouraged you to improve the article and I'm still doing so. As it stands the social network is not notable based on what's contained in the article. If you wish to establish that it is notable then please locate the sources and cite them in the body of the article. Insert footnotes and expand the content. EagerToddler39 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors please note the pending WP:ANI about these two editors.

I have shown without a doubt that this organization is notable, just as I did with Tom Wootton and 500+ sources. We have THOUSANDS of sources that quote Psych Central, and yet you will not close that AFD, or change your vote.

WP:BEFORE: "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources...The minimum search expected is a Google Books search and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. Such searches should in most cases take only a minute or two to perform. This was never done.

WP:AFD: "You can search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy"

Igottheconch (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google results do not mean instant notability. Your claim that Google Scholar yields 1,050 results is nice, but when you add the -site:psychcentral.com parameter, that result drops to about 240. A lot of the book and scholar hits I checked out mention Psych Central in a citation; they aren't about Psych Central itself. Ish dar ian 09:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus -- Y not? 16:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Moskowitz (real estate investor)

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

Rich businessmen obit (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not an obituary). I prodded it a while ago with the following concern " Nothing here suggests that this individual passes notability requirements as outlined in WP:BIO." Creator deproded it and expanded: [90]. Sadly, I am not seeing any significant improvements for GNG. There are sources, but only covering him briefly, and some of the best come simply from the thank you notes for him being a donor/sponsor. I am afraid I don't see how he passes WP:BIO, through I'd be interested in hearing any counterarguments. Also, I'd suggest to WP:USERFY this if deleted (if the creator wishes to retain a copy); the creator put a decent amount of work into this, after all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note The article says "one of the largest independent real estate management companies" in the New York area. It's not in the top 10.[91]. Argo has about 5500 rental units; Samuel J. LeFrak had somewhere upwards of 60,000. (The LeFrak article could use some expansion - he really was notable.) John Nagle (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I think it is a little hard to make comparisons with real estate companies since they are often in different lines of business (and especially for private companies). Many are ground-up developers (who buy property; lease it in the interim; and then tear down it down to build a new development when the market allows) while some are purely investors. Some will hold a lot of square footage while others will hold more valuable properties. Some are primarily commercial; while others are residential. Some hold their property forever; others will sell it on a whim. Although Moscowitz focused on the residential he also expanded into managing the residential real estate portfolios of other real estate investors (hence the designation " real estate management"). They would handle all the activities of the building for a fee (maintaining the property, keeping up the permits, leasing, sub-leasing, eviction...etc). The other developers rather not getting into this line of business since it is very tedious (although higher margin). I agree, Seymour Durst should definitely be expanded and his biography shows the difficulty in getting information on businessman who were quite important but made their mark in the pre-internet age and their history is now hidden in non accessible archives. Obituaries tend to be the only source we have. Moscowitz is not helped by the fact that one of the founders of the NAACP shares the same name, that he invested a lot in Israel (my Hebrew is not very good :-) and that he made his mark in New York City where he gets drowned out by the likes of Durst. If he made his mark in say Cleveland, we would probably have more information.Patapsco913 (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important businessman, with adequate references. DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:DGG: would you mind elaborating on this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in particular the ref from NY Press. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is enough of significant coverage in various Good sources to make him somewhat notable. The Times made his family pay for an obit gives me pause. What?! The poor man survived the Shoah .... Bearian (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete There just doesn't seem to be much info available about him. He was a successful real estate operator in New York, and seems to have kept a low profile. (Not unusual for people in rental real estate.) Most of his activity was pre-Internet, he didn't get much press coverage, and nobody wrote a biography of him. Most of the info we have is from his obituary. This article will probably never be more than the stub it is now. John Nagle (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so although the son is pretty active and often times you may get more information on the founders of companies in articles on their children. I started this article since I see the name of his company all around here in NYC (and I find the real estate industry here quite interesting) and thought it would be interesting to put something together on his background. I was kind of hoping that it would sit around as a stub for a while (since he is deceased) and see what would turn up. Maybe some reporter at one of the real estate journals would have his interest piqued and give us some more background. Cheers whatever you guys decide.Patapsco913 (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, but extremely close to delete. I would expect this to show up at AFD again in the next few months unless serious effort is put into it. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will amend this to an explicit WP:NPASR. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee for Two

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

I just don't see how this comic is notable, the referenced coverage does not suggest this passes WP:GNG. Pinging User:DGG for second opinion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets all points in WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NBOOK, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." There's no reason to delete this article. Doduf (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertions none-withstanding, I am not seeing how lack of inline references and general references to one book and one website make this pass GNG. While the guideline you cite may be notable for books, this is not a book, but a one page comic strip that is not even mentioned on the author's page (Carl Barks). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has inline references. While multiple references are expected, they are not required. Short stories and poems are not "books" either, but many short stories and poems have stand alone articles at enwiki (see: "The Conversation of Eiros and Charmion" by EA Poe and "There is a pain — so utter —" by E Dickinson). The guideline does not point to "form"; it points to the author's notability. And this is one reason why "Coffee for Two" is notable and has its own article. Its author is notable. Doduf (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 12:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, fails GNG -- Y not? 16:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets every point in the guideline WP:GNG. It's a modest offering, but it adequately meets all points. Importantly, its author, Carl Barks, (like Poe and Dickinson) is notable. There is no basis for deletion. Doduf (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus due to no input other than the nomination, with no prejudice against speedy renomination due to no quorum present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alie Layus

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

Notability issues were raised in 2011 but not followed up on. I think it's borderline. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masaki Kito

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

non-notable individual Zambelo (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I am somewhat reluctant about this since I suspect that the user who started this article, Mk08111, is likely related to the subject. Also, the article is a mess. But the fact is I have seen Kito on television many times as a commentator and he does specialize in what the article says he specializes in: cult incidents and consumer fraud cases. There are a number of articles centered on him: [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], etc. He also appears in other articles as the leading lawyer for some plaintiff, such as in the Agura Bokujo case [97] or in the Unification Church case [98] or the Kinmirai Tsushin case [99]. He's also often sought out by news organizations for expert opinion on Aum Supreme Truth [100], mind control [101], or other cases [102]. The article already cites some English articles that note his role as a lawyer. I'm sure I could find more if I go through the newspaper databases. The article needs to be cleaned up, especially with regard to WP:COI, but he passes WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the sources above provided by Michitaro (some of which I have added to the article), I think basic notability is adequately demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Michitaro. James500 (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Impulse

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

Poorly sourced promotional article about a product. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 14:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Hero MotoCorp. If it isn't independently notable there is plenty of room in the parent article to cover this model. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:21, 30 December 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, Courcelles 06:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Basketball Developmental League

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only Wiki mirrors show up in Google search results. It's also been tagged since June 2007 for improved references of which none have been added. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, might be notable, but I am not able to find any independent reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep--Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Wolkstein

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

No indication of significance, includes non reliable references. Itsalleasy (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the article has changed, there's clearly significance shown here (award-winning director of notable short films) and the second part about the sourcing falls back to AfD not being cleanup. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, User:Taylor Trescott's said it all, AFD isn't used as a clean up and She's appeared in notable films. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AppsFreedom, Inc.

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. At the border of what I normally close as consensus, but in my opinion solidly above the line.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biomass Research and Development Board

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

I have been unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources. The board is occasionally mentioned in reports by other agencies (not independent) and in specialty blogs (not reliable). The article fails the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for organizations. No new content has appeared in the article since right after its creation in June 2008. That's not AfD evidence, but it does suggest that there's not something I've missed in my search for sources; there's just not much notable going on at this agency. Lagrange 613 21:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Martin451 22:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fancy name but fails WP:ORG. gbooks just confirms it exists. what would get it over the line would be some coverage in mainstream press which is lacking. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted as CSD G5. Bilby (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Hadley

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

This article:

fails to explain its importanced Anishwiki12 (talk) 06:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this BLP is about someone who is involved in local politics and is a candidate for public office, neither of which satisfy the notability guidelines. asnac (talk) 18:25, 29 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 Speedy Keep. No policy-based reason for deletion, plenty of keep votes. (non-admin closure) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Niccol

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

This BLP has no references that do not have link rot. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be clear here....your asking for deletion because the links are dead not because hes not notable right? Perhaps a tag indicating sources are needed over deletion would be best no? -- Moxy (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep I added three sources in a few minutes google searchign and editing. Pleaase don't make AfD nominations without going through WP:BEFORE. This is what WP:BLPPROD is for. I urge a speedy close, and a swift trout to the nominator. DES ^(talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout per above. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment - Was created before the 2010 requirement that all BLPs have at least one reference. I have no opinion either way, really, except that references not being in the article is not the same as them not existing. Just felt the need to state the ref thing. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject won many film awards showing notability. ///EuroCarGT 03:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability is not remotely in question here, with a subject who has been nominated for an Oscar and has won a BAFTA and a number of other awards. And linkrot is not a basis for deletion, see WP:LINKROT. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with nominator at time of nomination. At that point, the article failed WP:V particularly given that the article had been tagged as needing cites to meet WP:V for over two years. Frankly, more articles failing WP:V need to be AfDed if that is the only way to force the cites being added. Now that the cites have been added, it passes both WP:V and WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per reasons above. And requesting that an admin please close this AfD. IjonTichy (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Bbb23. I've salted all of the various entries as a precaution. Given that the editor's name is a vio of our username policy, I'm blocking them for that as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Kid (Entertainer)

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

This doesn't smell right. Three of the references given mention Ice Prince, a different musician from this one; at best, they would support his having been nominated for a Best Entertain and Best Male Artist award from the World Music awards, but they are used to annotate a claim of his having won a Hip Hop Music award. The section title "1992-2010: Early life/Young Prince" and the sentence in the Performances section, "As an incentive, concert attendees who purchased advance tickets to the World Order tour received ‘’’Ice Kid’’ t shirt, shoes, album, [autograph]] as a token.[23][24]", is taken from Wizkid (musician). —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Hoax. Ice kid is also the same person in this article, has been deleted three times. Even the social media links they give goes nowhere. Identical article, Ice kid (singer), was also created and I put a speedy on that. Bgwhite (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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