Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 17

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  09:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfall totals for Lincoln, Nebraska (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page is more of a list of statistics than it is an encyclopedia article.

• Delete Wikipedia is not the place for a list as specific as this. General trends in snowfall have a place in the main Lincoln article, and so do records, perhaps. But not routine year-by-year reports. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. mikeman67 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with the nom and the above editors, per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Like the others have said, this is too trivial for an independent article. You probably could have just prodded it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete, duuh. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch camps. The history will be retained for a possible merge, but there was not a clear consensus to do so. This is a matter for editor judgement. SpinningSpark 10:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Cabins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

If Alden Brock is to be deleted, let's get rid of this page too. First off, the only source comes from Philmont itself. Rich Cabins should indeed be mentioned somewhere, but I don't like there being an article for it. Philmonte101 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and after keeping, merge the content to Philmont Scout Ranch camps. Title is a useful redirect, and history should be preserved. However, there's not enough material or enough sourcing to warrant a stand-alone article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch camps. It doesn't seem to have gotten any coverage as a historic site, and everything else I've found is just talking about it as part of a large piece on Philmont. But still, a valid redirect. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect. Searches turned up not a single in-depth article about this subject. A few brief mentions, but that's all. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Philmont Scout Ranch camps but keep history at least until the merge is completed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Comparing this article about a camp at Philmont to an article about a person who died at Philmont is a very bad argument. Nevertheless, I support redirecting this to Philmont Scout Ranch camps. The only other camp that appears to have an article is Abreu Camp and this is also at AfD. That should also become a redirect. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gender suicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Apparent WP:FRINGE theory, not supported by any reliable source coverage. Also WP:COI, as the article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of the person listed in the article as the originator of the theory. As always, Wikipedia is not the place to start propagating new concepts — our job here is to follow the media coverage, not to lead it. I'd actually have speedied this if I could find a speedy criterion that applied to it — I suppose it could be seen as approaching G11, but I don't think it's quite blatant enough to cross the line. But it's still a clearcut delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if it ever actually becomes a thing that reliable sources actually discuss. Bearcat (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator and WP:NEOLOGISM. mikeman67 (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only references to this theory or indeed this "doctor" I can find are on Twitter, YouTube, and other non-reliable sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a couple of brief mentions, but nothing in-depth. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and possibly create redirect to Gender differences in suicide. I couldn't anything to show that this specific theory has been covered in reliable sources that would show that this is anything other than a neologism. However what I did find was that one of the first hits was to gender differences in suicide, even with the term in quotation marks. This is because the article uses the term "gender-suicide gap", so it stands to reason that this term might be a reasonable enough search term for someone looking for that article. However for this term as it's used in the current article? I can find nothing to back up any notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As best I can tell, given the article's lack of references, it's a WP:FRINGE theory with no reliable sourcing or use in scientific literature. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't seem to be WP:RS that take this away from WP:FRINGE amd WP:NOTNEO. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not-notable, also per WP:FRINGE and WP:NEOLOGISM. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Ossetia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough content to warrant a separate article, and with only two wars involving this entity, this doesn't meet guidelines for a stand-alone list. QueenCake (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTESAL. The items in the list seems to have been cobbled together by the creator, and no sources are cited. I cannot find any evidence that items in the list have been discussed as a group by independent, reliable sources. The list is also extremely short, and is redundant with the material already covered in South Ossetia#Georgian-Ossetian conflict. --Biblioworm 19:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is already covered in substantial part in the South Ossetia article. And since it's not policy to have standalone lists like this (nice as it might be from a structured data perspective), it should be deleted. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Biblioworm and 69.204.153.39. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shohreh Ghamar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication that the subject satisfies WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. IMDb entry gives only two credits. SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 20:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm simply not seeing anything obvious to suggest better improvement and keeping. SwisterTwister talk 05:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. --Drm310 (talk) 15:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom and above editors. Searches turned up nothing to show they meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Meakin (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable actor. One local newspaper article does not provide enough evidence of notability. Fails WP:NACTOR. Tassedethe (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and this is easy to see with no better improvement available. Pinging Wbm1058. SwisterTwister talk 05:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see that we have two marginally notable people sharing the same name who are in competition for WP:primary topic. See:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive271 § Help please (April 2015)
  • Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 50 § What to do with "Jack Meakin (actor)" article? (September 2015)

  I will work on untangling the edit histories and disambiguation, though I'm not keen on this diversion of my time from more important encyclopedic topics. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Jack Meakin is now a dab, and I've restored the previously deleted history and the declined AFC submission. What's changed since then, to make this person more notable? Wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

InstallSimple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional page with no references, and I can't find anything to indicate it's anything but a small-time program. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per G11: Unambiguous advertisement. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I'd advocate for deletion, this would be an abuse of the speedy deletion process, which is meant for only the most grave policy violations, not poorly written articles. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself has written, "While the article is indeed an advertisement [...]". That's all the qualification that G11 needs.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, I should have said "lacks a neutral point of view." It doesn't proclaim "buy this for $19.99 now!," it just lacks an objective viewpoint. In any case, I just hate seeing the speedy deletion process, already heavily abused, used anywhere but absolutely necessary. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  00:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure advert. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the article is indeed an advertisement, that's not really part of the criteria for deletion. If a subject can be verified from reliable sources and is notable, it stays, whatever the textual shortcomings might be. This has no such sources that I can find. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 20:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Biryukov (talk) 00:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Hello. My name is Vladislav Biryukov I'm a main developer of the InstallSimple![reply]

InstallSimple - the world's only program to create an installer that is written in assembly language. It is unique among its competitors, according to a compact size - just 120 kilobytes, instead of 10,20,30 megabytes of similar software analogs.

The program is developed for more than 8 years. And was downloaded over 500 000 times.

Article about the program was created on principle of articles about other applications. I improve the article and put link to a last review of the program. If necessary concrete changes, please let me know...

I am against the removal of article about this unique program!

Thank you! Regards, Vladislav Biryukov

• Delete Should have been speedy deleted G11. Either way delete per WP:PROMO. --Jersey92 (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Actually, the above ip is incorrect. Promotional articles can be deleted for that very reason, if they have no redeeming qualities. Like this one. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is some sentiment this should be redirected to the current owner, but nobody seems to know who that is, so for now, I'll call this a straight delete. If somebody identifies an appropriate redirect target, it should be recreated as the redirect (and, in which case, a history restoration under the redirect would be appropriate). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oogwave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Likely non-notable software, possible COI/paid creation. The refs are: #1 - Firefox blocks it as site with malicious content (not going to check deeper), #2 unreliable Yourstory story - author is the same blogger, that sourced most of BlackMonk CMS, a second article created by the same editor. #3 is a company listing, #4 is a PR interview with Gaurav Jain (see the deletion log for some background). #5 is a GetApp blog on a thinly veiled marketing website (see their parent company). No in-depth coverage found via Google. GermanJoe (talk) 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I see no obvious signs of better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While oogwave.com doesn't appear to be functioning anymore (the company was acquired) and appears to have few reputable US sources, I was able to find some reliable sources that may indicate notability: Labs incubatee Oogwave offers content collaboration tools and Oogwave sees 3-fold growth in user base in 15 months. Thus, keeping in mind that notability is not temporary, I'd say we can (just) keep this. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they have a few details, both sources draw heavily on interview quotes and company-provided information, copied verbatim or quoted in the respective articles (see WP:ORGIND last point). If this company has been acquired by another company (do you know by chance which one?), the article should simply be redirected to the new owner - assuming the new owner is notable and has a Wiki-article of course. GermanJoe (talk) 23:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. Beyond the article's brief mention of ownership, I can't find much. I did turn up a few articles online comparing this with products offered from larger vendors, but nothing great. There may well be more coverage or information in non-English sources, but I'm not sure that helps us. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks a depth of coverage in secondary sources. Flat Out (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Would say redirect if we knew of the new owners. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skybench (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article discusses a corporate product (a concept to build container ship bridges; Skybench is a trademark by Hyundai Heavy Industries) that is still in the planning stages and has not been built a single time. All available sources refer or reprint the same corporate press release, some even contain the same pictures. In short, this is a corporate PR page. Wefa (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (press release doesn't provide notability.) -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as "Skybench" found some links at News and Highbeam but not much better. Pinging tagger Josve05a. SwisterTwister talk 05:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge in to the company's article per above. (t) Josve05a (c) 10:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poonam Kaur Sandhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Questionably notable as there's simply not much and my searches (including WP:INDAFD by the way) found absolutely nothing. This is easily speedy and PROD material but given as there are may be hidden sources, comments would be well accompany this nomination. SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found some sources [1], [2], [3], though most are fairly short and have maybe a few sentences or a short paragraph on her each. Couldn't find anything on her not in relation to her team. Other sources: an interview with other athletes from the school she attended [4], the source in the article that was part of a series where other young Indian athletes were featured [5], and her athlete profile [6]. But I don't think these sources are good enough.

The highest competition I found that she's played in was at the 2014 Commonwealth Games. Some sports at WP:NSPORTS mention participation in the Commonwealth Games as a sign of notability but most have placing requirements and field hockey is not talked about there. Her team didn't do too well at that competition anyways. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches didn't turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Holborow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Simply nothing to suggest better notability and improvement so unless there are some sources I'm missing, there's nothing to suggest keeping this article from October 2006 and this is easily speedy and PROD material. Pinging past user J04n. SwisterTwister talk 06:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show they pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Billboard citation in the article is a passing reference. I found a couple more [7] [8], but they're both perfunctory directory-style listings in industry-specific outlets; not sufficient to demonstrate notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable and no claim of significance. This should have been put for CSD. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DPVweb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable database/website. Most sources seems to be affiliated with the creators of the database and there also appear to be some COI present. Although there seems to be quite a lot of papers citing DPVweb as a source, there is little or no coverage of the database itself. Bjelleklang - talk 20:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep David Condrey ^{log talk} 23:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If reliably published academic sources use this as a reference (and they do--[9], [10]), then one can be sure that it's a notable database. But there's also some discussion ([11]), and I have no doubt there's more. Searching for the term in Google Books delivers plenty of results. They're mostly not helpful in article writing, but they indicate the subject is notable. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball Keep This is a clear one. Sure, it shows the weaknesses of Wikipedia policy's deference to academic sources over independent, web-based content, but this is supported by numerous and well-cited scientific sources and has been in use long enough to be notable. I note the COI issues, but the citations of the papers and mentions elsewhere outweigh that concern. Sure, many other scientists aren't going to talk at length about the database they use for research, but that fact that they are, and that it's relevant enough for a citation, proves the point. --69.204.153.39 (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Valhalla (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Novel with no substantive claim of notability under WP:NBOOK, written by a redlinked author and resting entirely on unreliable sources like "Valhallapedia" (a self-created Wiki devoted to promoting the novel on Wikia, thus failing both WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:USERG) and GoodReads. Not even one iota of actual media coverage in a real reliable source has been shown here. A novel is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it's possible to verify that it exists — it takes reliable source coverage, not the author's own self-created PR presence, to get a book in here. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There actually has been some press coverage. Joel Cornah of the SciFiFantasy Network held an interview with the author Ari Bach. They discussed Bach's writing process, characterization, and the up-and-coming release of the third part of the trilogy. Valhalla also ranks #88 in Books > Teens > Literature & Fiction > Gay & Lesbian on Amazon. Please do not let this amazing book fade into obscurity. --24.31.176.254 (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the Wikipedia page about notability:

	"A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

   "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[5]"

Valhalla does meet this criterion. There was an interview on the Sci-Fi Fantasy Network webpage. There are plenty of non-advertisement reviews of the book on Goodreads, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Google Play. Sky-fi-fangirl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews of a book only count toward the book's notability if they're published in reliable sources, like newspapers, magazines, literary journals and the like — they don't count if they're on user-generated content sites like Goodreads, or commercial sales sites like Amazon, B&N or an ebookstore. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reviews on Amazon and Goodreads are not usable to show notability, as they're considered to be self-published sources. Anyone can write one and while I'm not saying that Bach has done this, there have been authors who have had fake reviews posted to sway the ratings in one direction or another. Robert Stanek is notorious for having done this on Amazon in the past. As far as the Sci-Fi Fantasy Network goes, that wouldn't be usable because the site doesn't have anything posted about their editorial process or really anything about them in general. As far as I can tell, this site appears to have launched within the last year and hasn't gained any sort of coverage that would have them be considered a reliable source despite not having verifiable editorial oversight. It does look impressive, like it could eventually be considered one, but we have to judge reliability based in the here and now, just like we have to judge notability in the here and now. In any case, a search didn't bring up anything other than blog posts, primary sources, and other places that Wikipedia would consider usable. I wish the author well, but right now this book just isn't notable enough to pass NBOOK. I also have to note that the page is borderline WP:COPYVIO in some places, as it's taken quite liberally from the official book jacket. This is just your run of the mill non-notable indie book. Don't take this the wrong way - some of my good friends are struggling indie authors, but the thing is that it's incredibly difficult for indie and self-published authors to gain coverage. For every Hugh Howey there are thousands who never get that big break, but the thing is that without coverage in RS to assert notability there's just nothing that can be done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this does not meet WP:GNG. A search brings up unreliable reviews only. some libraries do appear to hold it like here [12] and worldCat does indicate some others [13] but this does not lead to notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unopposed.  Sandstein  09:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–San Marino relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. There is really no third party coverage of this relationship. San marino is so small it is hard for them to have meaningful bilateral relations except for its neighbouring countries. The agreements listed are routine like double taxation and anti money laundering LibStar (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Neither country even has an embassy specific for the other. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Moonsprite (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT billionaires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I question the value of having a separate list of billionaires based on their sexual orientation. This might be more appropriate as a category in the Category:LGBT people by occupation category structure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Do you also question the value of having a separate list of billionaires based on their race (See Black billionaires), their nationality (See List of Nigerian billionaires by net worth), their gender (See List of female billionaires), their class (See List of the richest royals)? All these factors, including orientation, have a prominent role in establishing wealth. Replacing it by a category of LGBT people by occupation would be pointless. Moonsprite (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The list seems to meet WP:LISTN based on several sources [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] and the individual entries are all notable. The sortable table in the article is especially informative.- MrX 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. - MrX 15:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a list of millionaires is not really a useful article --Grab it! 15:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think you mean a list of billionaires.

  2. Wikipedia must be filled with uselessness then (See Category: Lists of people by wealth). Moonsprite (talk) 15:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above - Well we already have one on race and nationality so to a point I think to be consistent we should have on on sexual orientation ... It sounds alot less stupid in my head! . –Davey2010^Talk 15:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of the stuff is useful, but a list of every living billioaire isn't, In My Opinion. AoorwHead (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's implicitly interesting. And an extremely valuable reference for those who work in philanthropy! ;-) 121.220.68.168 (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to reflect it being a list - Precedent only goes so far, and whether it's useful (or not) is irrelevant to AfD (see WP:USEFUL). What matters is that it's an appropriate and notable topic for a list as per the sources found by MrX. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename as list per above. That said, my primary rationale is that OTHERSTUFF exists, so if we have lists of foo billionaires of various sorts, this one is also acceptable. Montanabw^(talk) 03:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Helfgott Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and promotional Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as appears to have significant coverage in some reliable sources, e.g. this. --Rubbish computer 14:40, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the "significant coverage" referenced in the prior comment is a peripheral reference to a person's job. There is no substantive discussion of the subject.--Rpclod (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the results returned at News was not encouraging, nothing but several mentions. Newspapers was similarly void. However, when I got to the books search, it appears that this does pass both WP:GNG and WP:NORG. In addition to the several citations I've added to the article, there are literally hundreds of mentions of the facility amongst the credentials of authors and study managers, which can be found on Google Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The parkinsonsnewstoday.com citation found by Rubbish computer is just a passing mention. Regarding the Google Books query above, I looked at the first few; none of them impressed me as establishing notability. All I saw was more passing mentions, and listing of author affiliations. That's not enough. Perhaps, Onel5969, you could list the 2 or 3 books which you feel best demonstrate notability of this organization, and why? Note to closer; if you could, please leave this open another few days to allow time for @Onel5969: to respond. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi RoySmith - I added them directly to the article. Didn't think I needed to add them here as well. Here they are:

• The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine, Second Edition
• The Fiftysomething Diet
• The Best 168 Medical Schools
• Remapping Your Mind
• НОВІ СЛОВА ТА СЛОВОСПОЛУЧЕННЯ АНГЛІЙСЬКОЇ МОВИ В ГАЛУЗІ МЕДИЧНОЇ НАУКИ ТА ПРАКТИКИ: АНГЛО-УКРАЇНСЬКИЙ СЛОВНИК
• Stechly, Cherie; Schubert, R.W. (2010). Overcome Your Fibromyalgia. Tate Publishing. p. Chapter 6. ISBN 9781607995951.

btw, your ping didn't work for some reason, just happened to be checking on the still outstanding oldest, and came on this. But as I was going through all the citations, I could have added citations for each of the assertions in the article. In addition, as I said above, even in the brief mentions, which are all in the credentials of researchers, one of their top, if not the top, credential, was their association with this institution. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing those. I looked at them all (well, OK, not the one in Russian). Unfortunately, none of them look to me to be the kind of substantial coverage we require. I'm afraid I'm going to have to stay with my delete call. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with RoySmith. I reviewed the four online English references and each only gave one minor reference to the subject. This does not qualify as substantial coverage.--Rpclod (talk) 23:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Institutes like this go thirteen a dozen. Only in-passing mentions. Does not meet GNG or NORG. --Randykitty (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - fails notabllity standards. DangerDogWest (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above, fails notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable and as Randykitty said, "Institutes like this go thirteen a dozen". Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines; only sources given are website listings with no independent reliable sources indicating something notable about this school. Page does little more than list its offerings. 331dot (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further, page was created by someone with the name "RBS business" indicating an affiliation with the school. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 14:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I tried hard to verify that this is an accredited school, but not only did the web page on accreditation only link to the image files of the organizations it lists, I couldn't find any evidence that those organizations provided accreditation. Accreditation for non-state run training schools does not seem to be clear in Italy, but the article should at least link to a verification of the accreditation. The article also lists an exchange program with a non-existent Manhattan school. LaMona (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Italian version [20] was also deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now at least as I see no obvious better improvement. Pinging DGG (maybe you can browse through those new AfDs I listed?) and I'm not sure if David Eppstein, Drchriswilliams and Doc James also have comments. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It offers degrees. I don't think very highly of its accreditation, I don't think highly of the universities it says it is affliated with. But it does offer degrees, and that's the standard. I removed a little promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree that offering degrees merits a page, at least without independent RS(other than a mere listing); hundreds of websites will give you a degree in whatever you want; doesn't make them notable. 331dot (talk) 11:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the appropriate guideline is not "do we believe its claims of accreditation" but instead "does it pass WP:ORG". And I don't think it does. It has a fair number of Google hits but I don't see a lot that I would characterize as reliable independent sources that give in-depth information about this school. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. "Keep" opinions discounted for what I hope are obvious reasons.  Sandstein  09:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Phonemetra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NCORP. The only references I find are Facebook, PlayStore, some blogs and their web site. Jbh^Talk 13:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It can be useful.Peter39c (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.15.122.114 (talk) 21:27, 17 October 2015‎ (UTC)— Peter39c (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But where is the better coverage as my searches instantly found none? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs) 05:19, 18 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not an argument. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I simply found nothing to suggest better here. Pinging tagger Dodi 8238. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Couldn't find the coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG. --Dodi 8238 (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an article that might useful if completed with more references. Jeykey21 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.123.130 (talk) — Jeykey21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note - There is no such account as Jeykey21 registered at this time. Jbh^Talk 19:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL is not an argument. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: searches suggest that significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet the general notability guideline are not found. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I decided to help expand this article and find sources notables. Peter39c (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lost on Mars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Cannot determine that this topic meets general notability guidelines. This from io9 was the only acceptable instance I could find, but it is fairly minor, and the topic needs more reliable sources and more coverage of the significant sort. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As to the io9 article you mentioned, it just mentions the name and says the guy hasn't been able to track down a copy to see it yet. So there is no coverage about it, only it was a film and about Mars, and that searching IMDB or wherever had it listed, probably added in by the guy making those films. Dream Focus 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice to recreation iff additional secondary source coverage is demonstrated. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: To be fair, the film is mentioned in a few articles by the Journal Gazette & Times-Courier (links are in the Wikipedia article), but I am not sure this local coverage qualifies per WP:NRVE, which says the topic must be more than "a mere short-term interest". Lack of reviews in particular indicate this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The title of one local news story is Local women star in independent film, with another one Two locals star in new movie, 'Empire of Danger' . Another starts with A local man's tale of a struggle between heroic astronauts and evil barbarians on ancient Mars can now be viewed on the small screen. Earlier this month, local director and producer Eric Shook of Westfield started distributing videotapes of "Empire of Danger," a sequel of his 2001 film, "Lost on Mars." I don't think any of these count towards establishing notability. Dream Focus 13:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not pass the notability guidelines. Dream Focus 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added citations and references to page. I am having trouble with couple links because my computer is having issues and I keep greeting kicked off. I will try to fix links this coming week. My brief search came up with several news articles and reviews of this movie. I also noticed this article has been seen 2,828 within 30 days showing the movie has some credibility with the public. Other research I have done shows me that many of the websites and reviews about this movie have vanished/shut down since it's release date in 2002. The news articales and reviews that I have seen are written by staff writers from legit reliable news sources that have been around for more than 20 years and one of them 50 plus years.--Scantunl (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Scantunl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I don't believe anything you found are "from legit reliable news sources". Dream Focus 22:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: As I am trying to fix things on the page Dream Focus is constantly removing changing things before I can finish with what I am doing. He has even deleted one good link already. I post something he deletes it within seconds after I post it.--Scantunl (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Dream Focus is looking for confrontation, I am trying to improve the article as requested. I can't improve it if he keeps deleting things. --Scantunl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)--Scantunl (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I wrote in the edit summary why I removed things. I checked the sources, read through it, and commented on why it needed to be removed. There is no confrontation here. Find a reliable source that gives it significant coverage or it will be deleted. See WP:RS if you don't understand what that is. Post anything you find here. Dream Focus 22:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Drem Focus you don't allow me time to fix or change things. I posted one link and I went back to fix it and before I could you deleted the whole thing. I can't keep up with you. My computer is acting up! As far as notable well that's up to the administrator from my understanding, he will make his decision in a few days, so why not give him all the information. You also wiped out a bunch of external links, so now he doesn't have all the data. I am trying to help here, whats your motive?--Scantunl (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone who bothers to click on any of those links and see what's there, will tell you they are not valid references or even external links. I've been here for 9 years with tens of thousands of edits. I am trying to help the encyclopedia. You hardly have any edits at all. What is your motive? Do you have any connection to this film company? How did you just suddenly find your way here? Have you ever edited with another account? Dream Focus 22:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per its production having some coverage but generally failing WP:NF by not having more. While we might congratulate filmmaker Erik Shook for his attempt at creating something on a budget, inclusion criteria require a bit more notice from reliable sources. @Dream Focus: Dead links were easy enough to correct using The Wayback Machine, but being dead was a strong indicator that media interest was lacking. @Scantunl: please take a look and study how I addressed some issues per MOS:FILM. If there are reviews from Europe or Asia (even if non-English), please offer them. IF deleted and if you'd like to work away from attentive eyes as you improve and seek assistance, I'd be happy to place it in your userspace as a draft. But in lacking a lot more coverage, deletion seems likely. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: Nathan Shumate from Cold Fusion did a full review but it was lost from my understanding from a computer hack on his computer. He still lists it on rotten tomatoes. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/nathan-shumate/worst?cats=&genreid=&letter=&switches=&sortby=&limit=50&page=5 Ryan Cracknel from Appollo movie guide http://apolloguide.com/index.shtml did a full review also but has vanished as well. I found a few others but I don’t know if these links will help. http://www.mid-day.com/articles/a-look-at-sci-fi-hollywood-films-based-on-the-planet-mars/15640153 http://www.boosharticles.com/2010/08/movies-about-mars-and-why-we-love-them/ http://marsmovieguide.com/ I will keep Researching as I have time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scantunl (talk • contribs) 23:27, 19 October 2015‎

@Scantunl: Use The Wayback Machine here to see if you can find those old reviews. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Shumate's review was ""Pretty darned bad." ‐ Cold Fusion Video Reviews Posted May 21, 2003". If the only coverage is how bad it is, it isn't really notable. http://www.mid-day.com/ list two sentences about it, no reviews though. That isn't significant coverage. boosharticles doesn't say anything about the film at all, just list it as one of the films released about Mars. http://marsmovieguide.com/ doesn't review the film, it just list all the films about Mars and briefly what they are about. Dream Focus 00:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Careful Dream... even a bad movie could be (and many have been) found notable through coverage and commentary and analysis. This one seems to lack it though and it is through that lack we have non-notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counting Days (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I declined this A7 speedy as it made a claim of significance, esp. reviews in notable publications. Article is unsourced. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 16:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as even this current version is simply unacceptable and makes no clear claim of improvement. Pinging tagger Reddogsix. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable band lacking non-trivial sourcing. reddogsix (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Courtie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability for this boat. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. I am not sure how this survived for so long . No refs, no evidence of the slightest notability. If I could have found a relevant CSD category it would have been speedied.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sources. Zero indication of notability per WP:GNG. clpo13_(talk) 16:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  01:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show the notability of this boat. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Azrail (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not seem to comply with notability standards as set out in WP:BAND Knyzna1 (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  12:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Human3015^TALK  12:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I'm not seeing anything obvious to suggest better improvement. Pinging author Piet Delport. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and SwisterTwister. Nothing in searches to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CrazY JulieT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I actually speedied a few other music articles I encountered as they contained almost nothing but the fact this one has some Ukraine and Russian news links (at Germa Wiki), I'm questioning whether this is notable or can be improved and the best my searches found was this and this has not changed since October 2010. Inviting Wikimandia. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I can't find any thing. Their website doesn't work and "Crazy Juliet" is a song by a German singer. The name is in English so it doesn't appear to be a language/alphabet thing. —Мандичка^YO 😜 06:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I can even verify it exists. LibStar (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Can't find anything to suggest it meets notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leave (Lula and Bela B. song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Prodded and prod removed Richhoncho (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's no move target and nothing to suggest keeping. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete doesn't seem to be anything to show notability for this song. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 02:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up anything to show it passes WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gaertner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This person has had minor acting roles, don't believe he meets WP:NACTOR. Has his own company but don't believe that makes him notable. Fails GNG as well IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there's nothing to suggest better notability and improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. There's this interview on one of the two English newspapers in Hong Kong, but otherwise it's mostly passing interviews and routine mentions of his work in mainstream media. Deryck C. 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial roles. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BOMAG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The age makes me think it would've at least gotten better coverage than the best I found here, here and here (there are a few sources at the German Wiki as well) but I'm not seeing much to suggest convincingly better and the current article is speedy & PROD material (the article has existed with almost no change since December 2010 and the author may spell as "PR expert" (prexpert)). SwisterTwister talk 06:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, though if I got out of bed the other side today, it could easily be 'weak delete'. The current article is indeed very 'adverty' but could be sourced using the very long and comprehensive article in Allgemeine Bauzeitung (already identified above). There is also a large amount of coverage in other landscape and construction news sources, for example many articles in Fachzeitschrift für den Garten und Landschaftsbau. It's giant products are mentioned in a Huffington Post book review too. Considering the company's age there may be pre-internet coverage. If this was a British or American company I may well have gone 'weak delete' based on the increased ease of finding sources in the English language. Though there's scant evidence at the moment of general widely-read media coverage, I think there's enough to make a short, neutral article about the company. Sionk (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In general, I accept the notability of substantial long-established German companies listed in the deWP. (As for promotionalism,. the deWP used to be exemplary, but currently does not have our restrictions on paid editing). The slight promotionalism in the enWP article can be (and has been) removed, and the deWP article has additional acceptable material and substantial referencing. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Sionk's analysis is spot on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  09:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheiks Chemor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This was submitted as PROD but the tag was removed without making any material change to the article - a reference to an Arab language site referring to the current existence of the family. There is no reference indicating the notability of the subject and any hits on search engines returns Wikipedia, its mirrors, or sites supporting the claim of "Prince" Gharios of Ghassan" Kimon^talk 13:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we have a walled garden here? See this, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Order of Saint Michael Archangel of course. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Several references added. One of the sources is the official website from the Lebanese Ministry of Information. One of the Newspapers was founded in 1933. In all references the titles are cited and the fact that they were sovereign rulers during the time of Ottoman rule and still are very prominent family in Lebanon. On one of the sources, it's also cited that one of the Sheikhs married a Princess from the Chehab (or Shahib) family. From this family comes Fuad Chehab 3rd Lebanese President. With a simple online translator it's easy to see how notable the family is. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many articles about them. 188.247.72.153 (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also added a scholarly lecture from His Excellency Bishop Georges Abi-Saber Bishop Emeritus of Saint-Maron de Montréal (Maronite), Canada about His Beatitude Maronite Patriarch Estephan El Douaihy and the history he documented. 188.247.72.153 (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete for now and draft and userfy if anyone wants as we can wait for a better article and my searches only found a few links at Books, News and browser. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deletion will be highly arbitrary since there are five reliable sources, one of them being an official Governmental News Agency. It's not because there's a scarcity of sources in English that the subject is less true or notable. On the contrary, since there's a lack of English sources is one major reason why the article should remain. 188.247.77.79 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Personal reasons reading back all the edits on the article it's absolutely clear that the editors have personal reasons to delete the entry since that the complaint for the lack of references was satisfied. Since the reliable references were provided (Government official news agency and established Lebanese newspapers), there's neither reason nor argument to delete it. Unless, of course, there's some prejudice against Middle eastern people or a personal agenda involved. I believe editors have to ask themselves if what they want is an encyclopedia based on facts or based on opinions. HTrimegistus (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Redirect to Shammar. An article on this already exists - even the 'Chemor' article states that they come from 'Yamanis' (i.e. Shammar). See the following for evidence that the Chemor are the same as tribe as Shammar (whom the first ruler of the Ghassanid Empire was a member of): [21], [22], [23]. One of two things happened here: either the Arabic name was mistranslated, or this article is an attempt to perpetuate a myth that the Ghassanid Empire originated in Lebanon and not in southern Arabia. Either way, the article should be either redirected or merged. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to keep. I initially wasn't able to verify the sources using Google translate (the name is translated to 'fennel') but having now done so, all the sources seem legit. The Lebanese National News Agency states that they were the rulers of 'Kfarhata' in Lebanon so the family clearly has notability and coverage. I'm not convinced of the Ghassanid links, however. I'll also note that HTrimegistus' insistence on playing the victim card is not helping his case. Elspamo4 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: the references do not precisely show that Chemor is a misspelling of Shammar, but they indicate that the first Ghassanid king was a member of the Shammar tribe, not the Chemor, thus leading to my deduction. Elspamo4 (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not the same family First, "Chemor" is not a misspelling of "Shammar" but a different transliteration. The Arabic language has over 13 different transliterations. The Ghassanid family Malouf can be spelled also as Maloof, Maluf, etc being the very same family. Also: Khoury, Kury, Cury, Curi, etc... "Chemor" or "Shammar" (or even "Shummar" or "Chumar") means fennelFoeniculum vulgare in Arabic. The Lebanese family, although also from Qahtanite origin, was always Christian and always was sedentary, contrary to the alluded Shummar which has Bedouin (nomad) and Muslim roots. Some scholars defend that there are blood-links between the family and the tribe through the Ghassanid blood, however, the Lebanese family has its name directly from Ghassanid King Chemor Jabla V Ibn Al-Harith while the Shammar tribe has its name from the area called "Jabal Shammar" (Mountains of Shammar) possibly named after the Ghassanid King aforementioned. However, the original name of the family was "Tayy" adopting "Shammar" in the 14th century CE. As for the Chemor faily of Lebanon, there are registers pointing their existence with this name from the 12th and 13th Century CE in the region of Akoura. 188.247.77.79 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Estephan El Douaihy The history and notability of the Sheikhs Chemor is clearly mentioned on the book "Tārīkh al-tāifah al-Mārūnīyah" ^[1] by the Maronite Patriarch Estephan El Douaihy, "Blessed" by the Catholic Church (in process of canonization since 2008) and considered to be one of the greatest Middle Eastern historians of the XVII century.HTrimegistus (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done nauseating amounts of research and I can't really find anything in English that undoubtedly supports my conclusion, so I am striking my vote to be on the safe side. It would be useful if either of you two could provide some English language references - I was only able to find one self-published website. Elspamo4 (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Discrimination The problem here is clearly that some editors (I'm not referring to Elspamo4)have a problem with members of this family and are "teaming up" to delete all articles related to it. Or maybe they've a problem with Arabs or with Christian Arabs. They're using a "Nihilist approach" of simply denying sources that are perfectly reliable (even in English) according to Wikipedia rules. Just look back the articles cited here and the debate pages. The family is definitely real, noble and notable. Their titles are still officially recognized by the Lebanese Republic as the official website clearly shows. All main Lebanese newspapers reported the family's activities recently. The greatest Arab historian of the XVII century mentions the family on his books. One of the most famous Lebanese historians of the 20th century, Father Ignatios Tannous Khoury, wrote a book ("The Sheikhs Chemor, rulers of Zawiya")in 1950 exclusively about the family,its Ghassanid ancestry and historical role in the history of today's Lebanon. What else is needed to be worthy for those editors? There are a lot of articles with a lot less reliable sources that are not being scrutinized like these ones. Again I ask, is Wikipedia based mostly on facts or opinions? HTrimegistus (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. considering all of the above, I think on balance a keep is appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Antony Coia. I am discounting the solitary "keep" opinion by Pizzole because of their disruptive conduct related to this discussion, which includes filing three frivolous retaliatory AfDs. Everybody else agrees that this does not currently merit an article.  Sandstein  09:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Horror Movie Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:WEB; the only secondary sources given are Italian blogs. Google has only fourteen results for the phrase "Internet Horror Movie Database", most of them Facebook posts. McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google list it both as Internet Horror Movie Database or iHORRORdb.com or iHoRRORdb. You can find filmmaker, website, social accounts and even IMDB talk about the Internet Horror Movie DatabasePizzole (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a search for "iHoRRORdb" shows the same fourteen results. "iHoRRORdb.com" has 45 results, but most of them are from what seems to be a broken site-scraping domain at viewsline.com, which has mirrored some of its articles. You'll need to demonstrate that the website has received detailed coverage in some reliable non-blog sources, to show that it meets WP:WEB. --McGeddon (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon:I added another source: http://www.darkveins.com/153069-ihorrordb-nasce-linternet-horror-movie-database/Pizzole (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I search it in Google as "ihorrordb.com" i find "About 5,330 results (0.34 seconds)" Pizzole (talk) 13:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get "About 5,360 results (0.54 seconds)", but if I click through to page 6 it becomes "Page 5 of 45 results". But sorry, I don't mean to imply that the number of WP:GOOGLEHITS are actually important - just that I confidently wasn't able to find any reliable sources when I used Google to check, because it was easy to check every result. darkveins.com seemed to be just another Italian blog. --McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: darkveins is very popular between horror filmmaker all around the world. Check out their interviews: http://www.darkveins.com/speciali/Pizzole (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Antony Coia article, Coia owns the Internet Horror Movie Database and is an "admin" on darkveins, so darkveins.com is not "independent of the subject", as WP:GNG requires. --McGeddon (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: You are right for the darkveins article. (Pizzole (talk) 11:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@McGeddon: The real problem it isn't the source. The database is the only in the genre and it has over 7000 titles and over 50000 celebrities and tons of pics you will never find on IMDB.Pizzole (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 October 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not surprised that we can't find many sources for this website. Assuming that the launch information is accurate, this database is only active for less than two months. We typically have some trouble finding third-party information for websites which are older, larger, and a bit more notable. For example, the Internet Movie Database is active since 1990 but its article only contains about 40 citations and some of them are sourced from the Database itself. Dimadick (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirecct to founder Antony Coia where it has all the mention it needs. If it ever grows in actual coverage instead of the provided WP:SELFPUB (sorry Pizzole), it can be resurrected. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added this: "==Legal online streaming service== In October 10, 2015, iHORRORdb starts a free service of legal streaming. First movies added to the service are The Sender, Circle of Eight, Rumpelstilskin, Shanks, Ghost Team One, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, Beneath and The Loved Ones from Paramount Pictures." (Pizzole (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

It's fine that you added it and nice that they offer a streaming service, but that does make the website notable. Read WP:N, WP:RS, WP:WEB, and WP:ORG. Bast, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:What makes the site notable it isn't the streaming service or one, four, or ten articles about it on blogs or magazines (as wrote @Dimadick:). What makes it notable is that it's the only horror movie database online and that it has over 7000 titles, 50.000 celebrity pages and tons of images. And of course, that there are well established sources (for the same genre) that prove that. (Pizzole (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I have examined the General notability guideline. I can see nothing wrong with the first two sources I attached (NonSoloGore is a famous italian blog about Independent Cinema. Horror Fest is the website of an Horror Festival property of it:Torino Comics). You talk about blog but in guideline I can't see objections about blogs. And a blog can be as fomous as a magazine. I think that all points have been respected. (Pizzole (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Pizzole: Actually what it does and how large its database is does not make it notable. And being the first of a kind could make it so IF as a "first" or "largest" it has the requisite coverage and analysis in multiple independent reliable sources, even if only Italian sources. And two is two... not really a decent multiple. Further, even as a blog (they are not automatically disqualified) Non Solo Gore could be a nice beginning IF WP:RSN determines the site meets the criteria at WP:RS, but I will caution that a horror fest website is not exactly independent of its own festivals. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:In my article there are three sources. Where are the sources for pages like these? Internet Movie Firearms Database, AlloCiné, filmportal.de, BFI Film & TV Database, Japanese Movie Database? Sorry, I can't understand the difference. Can you explain what do you mean with "a horror fest website is not exactly independent of its own festivals"? Thank you. (Pizzole (talk) 07:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Pizzole: First, go read WP:WAX. And though your examples are not subjects of this deletion discussion THEY, far far more than does IHMDb, are subject of analysis and commentary in multiples of multiple reliable sources. THAT is the difference. Bring forth multiple independent reliable sources (not just three or four) that discuss IHMDb itself directly and in detail (even if non-English sources) and you'd go far to show the website as having suitable notability. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: I have found another source about iHORRORdb: * Other News for iHORRORdb launch (Pizzole (talk) 10:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC))"[reply]

Its name being Gossip Day does not bode well for "reliability" on your cause, but it does appear to have a staff, so go ask about it over at WP:RSN. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: It seems it is a Google News italian editor. I've added a question about it on the page you linked me. Sorry for my ignorance in Wikipedia things. :D(Pizzole (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per se "GossipDay" is not a reliable source. This article is entirely a promotion for a site which is a commercial site -- selling movies. Merging commercial ads into any BLP is "not done" on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: You are completely wrong. The website don't sell movies. It offer a free service of courtesy link to buy them on Amazon but there isn't any affiliation between the two site. @MichaelQSchmidt: Help me, Collect are responsible for vandalism in Antony Coia. I think that there are interests.(Pizzole (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: The site has an "ADVERTISE HERE" banner. Clicking on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" shows a clear "$ Buy Now" choice - linking to Amazon (from which the referring site gets a cut). It is selling movies by any meaning of the term. Ditto for the other movies with "free streaming". And when a site offers "free streaming" and then asks "Own the rights?" it suggests that they are streaming without clear rights to do so. The site is "commercial" ab initio, and seeks to make money from its existence in itself. If it is not truly "notable" from independent sources, it has no business using Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Collect (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: "Advertise Here" is not a banner but a link. Wikipedia ask for donations and iHORRORdb sell some spaces. All these pages and images has costs. For Wikipedia as for iHORRORdb. But you're wrong for the movies. The Database don't sell movies and it isn't affiliate to Amazon. Do you need proofs of that? I can give you the proofs, if you need them. IMDb is commercial so as all the website listed on Wikipedia. (Pizzole (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The site's "$ Buy Now" buttons are plainly Amazon affiliate links. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can furnish proof that the site has zero financial connection to Amazon whatsoever? I note that almost all sites which link to Amazon receive a percentage from Amazon, and I would a tad shocked to see the site turn such monies down. Your other problem is no one unconnected to the site seems to have written about the site which makes the "notability hurdle" insurmountable at this point. If you are in any way affiliated with the owner of the site, the site itself, or with GossipDay, now is the time to declare it. Collect (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:@McGeddon: It's not an affiliate to Amazon. For sure. It's a free service for filmmaker and users. The first one love to see a Buy Now link and the second one have direct link to amazon if the want to buy the movies. Free streaming is legal. All movies are provided by Paramount Pictures. You can find them on Youtube for free: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzMVH2jEyEwXPBvyht8xQNw All streaming movies on the Internet Horror Movie Database are embedded through Youtube. And I'm not affiliated with anyone. I'm not a spammer. I love the horror genre and all good things about it. And the website is a good resource for the fanatics.(Pizzole (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Note to closer The editor, Pizzole,responsible for the article about this commercial site has made zero edits outside the site's owner BLP and the site article itself. Collect (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect:@McGeddon:You wrote that no one unconnected to the site seems to have written about the site. It's not true. The sources aren't connected to the website. You wrote than the site is an amazon affiliate. It's not true. You wrote that it sell movies. It's not true. This isn't spam. This is the truth. (Pizzole (talk) 14:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Looks like the site's Amazon affiliate links have changed since I last checked, unless I misread them earlier; they're now showing an empty "tag=". But the old links are still visible in Google's cached versions and plainly include a "tag=something" field, showing that the links were unambiguously part of the affiliate programme, until recently. (Not that this by itself is a reason to delete the article.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The website is not affiliate to Amazon. If you need proof you can contact Amazon and ask them. No affiliation between the two site. Nothing. (Pizzole (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

The site was running Amazon affiliate links until very recently, anybody can confirm this. How can you be sure that no other affiliate structure is in place when you claim to have no professional connection to ihorrordb.com? --McGeddon (talk) 15:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon affiliate use tag like this http://www.a-ma-z-on.com/?tag=your_Associates_ID. You can always contact owners via contact form if you need more info. The website it isn't commercial like IMDb (Amazon properties) or an ecommerce because it not sell movies. All pages are free for guest and users. Streaming is legal, sources are independent. There is nothing that is wrong with this page. Not for deletion. It can be updated but it's a genuine page.(Pizzole (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

For what it's worth, here is an archive copy of a page from October 6 whose "$ Buy Now" link plainly includes the affiliate tag "tag=i0814-20". The live page for the same film no longer contains that tag, and it looks as if the Internet Horror Movie Database has blanked all of their affiliate tags some time between October 6 and October 12. --McGeddon (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry @McGeddon: but you haven't any valid argument. Even if the website WAS an affiliate, who care?(Pizzole (talk) 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Note New source: http://www.klub99.it/2015/10/e-nato-linternet-horror-movie-database.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 14:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Antony Coia, although I will note that his article needs some work with asserting notability itself. (But since that's not what's up at AfD at the moment, I'm not going to worry about that.) Right now there aren't any sources that are both independent and reliable, per the discussion above. The newest link isn't any better, as the site does not have any verifiable editorial oversight and looks to be a WP:SPS. I'm sorry, but this is just too soon for an entry. FWIW as a horror fan, I like the site and hope it does well enough to warrant an entry in the future, but right now it just doesn't pass guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79:Yes, you are right about the last source. It hasn't any verifiable editorial oversight. But it's the only. Look at this one: http://horrormovie.it/news/leggi_news.asp?id=2081. It's one of the oldest horror websites in the planet. And both Nonsologore, Horrorfest, Horrormovie and Gossipday have verifiable editorial info. (Pizzole (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

On Alexa, "horrormovie.it" ranks about 1,473,000. About 1% of its pageviews are from the English-speaking areas. Collect (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is Alexa an accurate measurement tool? No. Look at here: http://www.bloggingspell.com/alexa-traffic-ranking/ or the tons of page talk about alexa inaccuracy. (Pizzole (talk) 13:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Collect: Here you can check some diagrams about alexa inaccuracy: https://catn.com/2010/08/16/how-accurate-is-alexa/ Can you show me a link where Wikipedia talks about alexa as an important metric for the reliable sources? (Pizzole (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Noting the bloggish nature of your cavils, Alexa rankings well over 1 million tend strongly to indicate that very few people visit a given site. That only .88% of all the site's page views are from the US indicates that exceedingly few people in the US read the site (in fact, Alexa indicates the total page views are so low that meaningful statistics are not to be had.) When trying to say that a site with a rank of 40,000 has significant difference from a site with a rank of 39,000 - yes the margin of error is noticeable. (one reason why I find those who post up and down arrows on Wikipedia for sites which have a change of 5 in their position to be useless). When dealing with a site with a rank on 1.4 million or more - the stats will not support saying that Alexa is off by 400,000 in the ranking. So if you insist Alexa is off by more, your cites will not support that claim. What you might be able to claim is that the value of 1.473 million should have a possible error value of plus or minus 50,000 or so -- at best the site could be as high as a rank of 1.423 million. Better? Collect (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: You can boost Alexa ranking with some tricks (e.g. http://www.improvealexaranking.com). So stop to talking about it. It's not accurate. Can you show me a link where Wikipedia talks about alexa as an important metric for the reliable sources? (Pizzole (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Note Added reliable sources: http://www.ingenerecinema.com/2015/10/15/internet-horror-movie-database/ (staff page: http://www.ingenerecinema.com/2010/10/25/chi-siamo/) and http://www.horrormovie.it/news/leggi_news.asp?id=2081 (staff page: http://www.horrormovie.it/staff.asp). The first one talks about the potential of the website for professional, curious and scholar interests. (Pizzole (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I don't read Italian, but the last three news sources raised here are all short blog entries that appear to have been written mere hours before Pizzole has brought them up in the AfD. They seem like they're written in the same kind of way, two using the exact same screenshot. Are they definitely independent of Antony Coia, rather than the result of a press release or paid content made in response to this AfD? --McGeddon (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon: I think that the screenshot is taken from the official facebook page (https://scontent-mxp1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/11214039_1498941230419703_1513634204707448988_n.jpg?oh=80ec9cd440770384865b957eee3af6ca&oe=56C807C2). If you look at it you can see that the logo of the website is not visible in the picture. If the owner payed for the content, why the screenshots has the website logo hidden? I think it's because all websites took the images from the official facebook page. I know italian and articles are not written in the same kind of way. The more professional seems to be the last one (IngenereCinema). (Pizzole (talk) 17:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• this article is not notable and looks more like a marketing piece. Murrayturtle (talk) 13:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt:@McGeddon:Please stop this account. He is doing disruptive editing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Murrayturtle— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzole (talk • contribs) 15:05, 16 October 2015‎

The user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet, looks like they hit this AfD at random. --McGeddon (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was for vengeance because I reverted some of his disruptive editings. (Pizzole (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete article is written like an advertisement and lacks any reputable references.. All references on the page are merely listings or affiliate links. David Condrey ^{log talk} 00:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: References added to the article are all (except one) valid sources in Italian Wikipedia and not only it. Everyone can search for them in it.wikipedia.org (especially horrormovie.it, ingenerecinema...) If you know Italian language, you can understand the reliablity of the sources in the article. Plus, half or more of the negative reasons exposed in this discussion are only assumptions, mainly wrong and that you can verify by yourselves: this website doesn't sell movies, it's not affiliate with Amazon (everyone can see this because there isn't any tag code id) and sources are reliable and independent. The only one dependent source (from a website of the same owner) has been removed. Various sources and new text have been added since the discussion start.(Pizzole (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Redirect, unfortunately, per MichaelQSchmidt, above. I widened the search parameters to Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- but found nothing. — Cirt (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Cirt:. You have to check it as "Internet Horror Movie Database" or "iHORRORdb". Your search is wrong. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (Pizzole (talk) 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: added new source. (Pizzole (talk) 16:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@McGeddon: You are hostile. You have deleted your comment because it has no sense. The source is not a horror blog. You are wrong and yours are assumptions without sources. Mondospettacolo is a website about television and cinema. It's not anonymous. There is a staff, there are names. It's a website made by people that works in italian cinema. And in previous sources, if you look at staff, you can find important name as writers, journalists and people that works on RAI. It's not my fault if you don't know Italian. Look at here: http://www.mondospettacolo.com/our-crew/ (Pizzole (talk) 11:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

If you want it to be recorded, okay, my comment was "Your new source seems to be another anonymous horror-blog entry written just a few hours before you introduced it to the article." - the site actually explicitly describes itself as a blog in a odd legal footnote at the bottom of every page ("Questo blog non rappresenta una testata giornalistica"), and the article is credited to Direttore ("Editor"?), whose profile "about" page says nothing more about them, when I click through. --McGeddon (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@McGeddon:Direttore is Director. In the staff page I see that the Director is Alessandro Cunsolo. You see it? Ok, so stop with your assumptions. For the footer disclaimer is simply because in Italy there is a law against the press freedom. You can find that in a lot of Italian websites. It's a disclaimer very very common. Anyway, it's not an horror blog and it's not anonymous. You can see the staff page. About the fact that "is written just a few hours before you introduced it to the article", it's the same reason for which I reply you after a few minutes. ;)(Pizzole (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note: Added new source. It's a magazine (newspaper), made by journalists. Staff Page in which you can read "ISCRITTO AL TRIBUNALE DI VELLETRI Autorizzazione n 2 del Tribunale di Velletri, 30 Gennaio 2007 (modifica e aggiornamento dicembre 2010) Registrazione al ROC 16238" (Pizzole (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Note new source from one of the most important and visited horror magazine in the world. It's a magazine (newspaper), a cultural institution and a book publisher made by journalists. You can check the staff page in which you can read: Testata giornalistica registrata presso il Tribunale di Milano, n. 253 del 4 aprile 2005. ISSN 1974-8221. (Pizzole (talk) 08:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep, the AFD fails. WP:GNG/WP:WEB are respected. Since the article was afded a lot of sources and new text have been added. Sources are reliable and independent. There are sources from blogs, newspapers and websites. There are news, reviews and articles made by bloggers, professional writers and journalists. The article and the website are notable. Old redirect, merge and deletes are obsolete because new sources have been inserted and because many of these comments are only assumptions.(Pizzole (talk) 10:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • Um -- using a magazine which apparently gives a press release from a new site != much of a source. Sorry -- we all know from your array of posts here, but so far the best you can hope for is a redirect, and more likely the likely commercial spam for a very new website will be deleted. Collect (talk) 12:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your "press release" is only an assumption. If you know Italian language you know that you are wrong. The last source is best known than magazine like Rue Morgue (magazine). Do you remember your assumptions about Alexa? Well, here are two newspapers that run better than magazines that have a page on Wikipedia. Please, talk about spam to professional journalists and writers.(Pizzole (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

And stop to leave comments as children do, You seem an hater. I added reliable and independent sources so if you want to talk against the article, please prove your comments. (Pizzole (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Deal with the issues - and I am far from a "hater" as I have known people who have appeared in "horror movies". And trying to say "but Wikipedia has articles about magazines you think are even less notable" is not a strong argument here at all. So please keep really misguided attacks out of this. Collect (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "but Wikipedia has articles about magazines you think are even less notable" is your argument and your words. Not mine. And I'm not interested in your private life and who you know. I want you to prove what you are talking about if you claim for a delete. I'm a lawyer and I know what I am talking about. And you now are discrediting the work of journalists, professional writers and registered newspapers.(Pizzole (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - per nom and Collect. Searches do not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet notability criteria. Add to that the promotional tone of the article, and there is nothing to keep through a merge. Wouldn't be adverse to a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:Wikipedia WP:GNG says: There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. and "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail so there are problems with your claim. There isn't any promotional tone in the article. Please take a look at the Internet Movie Database and compare them. Please explain what do you intend with "promotional tone". Thanks (Pizzole (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - my rationale is clearly stated above. Your continued confrontations with those who disagree with you are wearing thin. It's time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:Sorry but if Wikipedia want reliable sources for the article, even the debat need reliable sources from who disagree and why. And I can't see them because there is nothing except assumptions. I proved the notability of the website. Journalists proved that. It's not what do you like or not. There is a clear guideline. So, please tell me what is wrong in the article with the guideline WP:GNG. (Pizzole (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

@Onel5969:And for me it's not important if the article will be deleted, merged, redirected or approved. What I want are answers. I want to know the exact part of text of the Notability guideline in which there are problems with the articles and the sources.(Pizzole (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - You've been given answers. You simply don't want to see them. With that I'm done with this senseless conversation. Again, drop the stick. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969:This is Wikipedia, not me: WP:GNGThere is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. So, your "do not turn up enough in-depth coverage" is just an assumption. And you can prove nothing because Wikipedia guideline is clear. drop the stick with me. (Pizzole (talk) 16:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• Note to closing admin Draft:Internet Horror Movie Database should be bundled. Brianhe (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem? It's a draft, not a published or duplicate page. Pizzole (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer The AfD Fails. WP:GNG/WP:WEB not. WP:GNG says: Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language and There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected. WP:WEB says: "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe is "important" or "famous" is only accepted as notable if it can be shown to have attracted notice. and most important at all, as reported by wikipedian Dimadick High-traffic websites are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller websites can also be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger websites.. This debat is ambiguous and not clear. The are no reason for a deletion (the article is well sourced) and no reason for a redirect to the owner of the website. He is a musician... not a website. (Pizzole (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. In the sense that there's no consensus about whether to merge somewhere or to keep separate, but there's clearly consensus not to delete this.  Sandstein  09:43, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boot File System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not convinced that this single operating system feature meets WP:GNG. I can't find sources for it either, outside the homepages of the few enthusiasts that wrote Linux drivers to it. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly I don't care, I'm only interested in the Be File System, so as long as BFS is kept disambiguated… --Mmu man (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of file systems or delete. I only see trivial mentions scattered throughout reliable sources (example). I prefer a redirect over deletion so that readers can still find information about where it's used and supported. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep This is very minor. It's spectacularly uninteresting. But it has also been a part of System V Unix for 30 years, and that's a big piece of computing development and history. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not merge it with UNIX System V or whatever is most relevant then? More than a stand-alone filesystem, it sounds like it's a part of the core OS that comes in the trick form of a filesystem. LjL (talk) 12:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's more a filesystem than it is an OS. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a joke, right? Of course it's a filesystem, what I'm saying is that it's part of an OS and for other OS's the same kind of part wouldn't typically be implemented as a filesystem. At any rate, if you prefer this non-notable article to be deleted instead of merged with the relevant article...

If was a joke it would have had "Bazinga" after it.

Merging it to System V would improve neither coverage of this topic, not coverage of System V. Especially so as that's a huge scope to try and fit into an article and so space there really is precious (this is unusual at WP). Space for this article is plentiful, and the topic is basically notable (albeit a minority interest). So we should keep it, and keep it separate. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, then if it's notable, we'll surely see secondary sources coming for it and the issue will become moot. LjL (talk) 13:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me also add that being "part" of something "big" for many years doesn't by itself make something notable, otherwise we could legitimately have separate articles about single source code lines of Unix. We don't and we shouldn't. So your argument for keeping, whether or not there are other ones, is invalid. LjL (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Several unix-like distros support this filesystem. The SCO/UnixWare helpdocs.[24][25] Linux support is WP:NOTEWORTHY in the wiki-reliable sources, specifically noted for heavy use of the big kernel lock deprecated feature.[26][27] Linux helpdocs.[28][29] NetBSD conference-paper on filesystems work which tested a new infrastructure by porting SysVBFS,[30] itself supported since NetBSD4.[31] Not every Unix-like distro still retains BFS compatibility: Solaris-fka-SunOS dropped support.[32][33] The 1993 infoworld piece, located by User:NinjaRobotPirate, has the most depth in the WP:SOURCES, roughly two sentences: "BFS (Boot File System) supports filesystem-independent booting." Also, we learn from the block-diagram-picture,[34] that BFS in UnixWare is implemented on top of the SVR4.2-style pseudo-SCSI device subsystem, and is made visible to usermode via the SVR4.0 virtual filesystem abstraction layer.

  Fundamentally, this is going to be a WP:PERMASTUB article, if bangkept, simply because the filesystem is so trivial to implement: it supports only a single directory, with purely-contiguous non-special 16-bit-inode files, max-14-char filenames, plus in some variants only a single inode can be open for write-access at any point in time, and so on. It is purposely stripped to the bare essentials, because it is a "boot-time-only kernel-images-only filesystem" utilized only for a very special purpose, very early in the boot-process, and afterwards, effectively disappears from the OS. Like the master boot record of MSDOS, the concept of BFS is a tiny and almost 'trivial' yet important piece of computer science. The closest we have to a parent-article is at Booting#Integrated_circuit_read-only_memory_era, which briefly mentions that "Unix workstations originally had vendor-specific ROM-based firmware." BFS is a quasi-standardized subset of several of those bootloader-firmwares, methinks. Because the BFS is used across several distros (in various different decades), it does not make much sense to up-merge the WP:PRESERVE material into any specific parent-OS-article, whether UNIX System V or UnixWare or NetBSD or the dedicated Linux startup process article. For different reasons, up-merge into a filesystem-related article seems incorrect, since BFS only qualifies as a 'filesystem' of the most rudimentary possible description, by its very nature.

  If bangkeep is not in the cards, I would say that adding a new paragraph into the Booting article probably makes the most sense. The justification for bangkeep, if it can be made, would have to rely on WP:DEADLINE... as the 1993 infoworld piece hints, the existence of in-depth sources will most likely require searching the *offline* material from the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, besides the plausible existence of not-yet-found offline sources, there is another aspect that might cause one to lean towards bangkeep: because it is such a trivial filesystem, and to a lesser extent because it is a kind of conceptual glue between the bootloader-firmware and the earliest stages of operation the OS kernel undergoes, BFS has some educational value to the readership. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an EECS reference for computer science students, of course, but there might just be room in WP:NOTPAPER to cover the concept of the purposely-simplistic-bootloader-specific-filesystem, which BFS embodies. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I'm not an expert, but quickly glancing at the notability page, the secondary source requirement doesn't apply to the content strictly, it applies to the subject, there has to be significant interest in the subject over the years. A quick google and I'm seeing the sysV bootfs mentioned in a lot of places, including a netbsd academic paper about RUMP, and a microsoft research paper about their helios research operating system, although the microsoft paper wasn't accessible when I tried to see how bfs was mentioned in it. It's getting mentioned with some frequency in published academic papers. What more could you possibly ask for?TeeTylerToe (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @TeeTylerToe: Could you point to specific sources? I presume that by the Helios paper you mean this one, which discusses Helios's own boot fs somewhere, not the SysV boot fs that this article is about. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I couldn't access the paper when I was doing the search. The google return was based on System V shared memory, so you're right, that was a false hit. It is mentioned in "Rump File Systems: Kernel Code Reborn" by Antti Kantee, a paper for Helsinki university and in "Kernel Development in Userspace - The Rump Approach" by the same person for the same university. It is technically notable. The best kind of notable. Also "Unix System V Release 4: System Administrator's Guide, Volume 1" Prentice-Hall, 1990, ISBN 0139470867, 9780139470868 Plus a laundry list of SysV unix books.TeeTylerToe (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Unixware, which is what the article itself claims it's part of, while making no assertion about BFS's notability or importance as a stand-alone software product. This is a relatively tiny mechanism that works as part of an operating system, and which just happens to be implemented in the form of a filesystem; things like this don't each need to have their separate article, and the way they are implemented should not change that. LjL (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LjL (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - admittedly a relatively minor tidbit of computing history, but I learnt something from this article, and I'm happy that I learnt it, and I'd be sad to see it deleted. I don't think merging into Unixware is a good idea, because it won't fit well with filesystem lists/categories/templates. SJK (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if it were made into a section at UnixWare, say UnixWare#Boot File System, then categories and templates could just link to the latter. LjL (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do you add a section of an article to a category? Either the whole article is part of the category, or it isn't. And seeing UnixWare in the file systems category, people will remove it (on the correct grounds that Unixware is not a filesystem), with the end result that this filesystem will be missing from the category. Templates can indeed link to sections of articles, but my past experience is intra-article links often get broken unintentionally by people reorganising the article. So, on the whole, I think leaving this as a separate article will produce the superior outcome from a template and category perspective. SJK (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about categories, I was really thinking of just lists and templates. LjL (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Perhaps rename as discussed below?  Sandstein  09:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maine dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no [linguistic] evidence given that there is a "Maine dialect." There is indeed a Maine accent as part of the larger Northeastern New England dialect; see New England English. However, even the Maine accent bears virtually no significant differences from the rest of Northeastern New England. At the same time, there are not even any academic sources given. Linguists do not recognize any unique Maine dialect. Wolfdog (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no Maine Dialect as recognized academically, it has had a significant presence culturally and commercially, and Maine has been widely represented by non-academics as its own dialect for about a century, as documented in a variety of news sources. I think the matter could take its own page, although I admit that that will take research and editing in which I have no desire to involve myself. Unless somebody will do the work, we might be best merging it back into New England English. Chamberlian (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak redirect Keep - right now the article seems to be entirely WP:OR, which is very problematic. The three citations appear to be either unreliable or fairly trivial. However, this is an article in reliable source which quotes from a professor (Bert Vaux) who studies Maine accents in specific: [35]. Another source here: [36]. But right now I'm not sure there's enough reliably sourced info to sustain a page. I think a redirect, at least for the moment, may make sense. But I think a case can be made for a pared down version of this page remaining. Do you have any sources for your claim that "Linguists do not recognize any unique Maine dialect"? If that were true I'd agree this page should be removed. mikeman67 (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main point is that sociolinguists recognize a uniquely Northeastern New England English dialect, but not a uniquely "Maine" English dialect. Can you find anything to negate this? Even "Maine sub-dialect" would be a safer name though this would be conjectural. More to the point, the variety has no significant notability beyond the whole of Northeastern New England English, which is already discussed at both New England English#Northeastern New England and Boston accent. I see no linguistics articles that separate these apart meaningfully from any kind of a "Maine English." They're all the same dialect (the most notable sub-type being the Boston one). As for your first article (which at least has some specifics, such as "Italian sandwich" and "yonder," but by no means confirms that Maine speech constitutes its own dialect, and in fact, the quoted linguist Vaux consistently speaks of Maine as a subset of [Eastern] New England English) is written by a journalist/reporter and your second article by a theatre critic -- neither one a linguist. I would be in favor of either deletion OR a redirect. Wolfdog (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure if it's relevant whether the authors are linguists or not. I don't think that's ever the standard in these debates (do we require scientists to cover new inventions? Athletes to cover sports events?). It's true that even Vaux discusses it in context of an Eastern New England English dialect. But at the same time, Vaux says that it is "utterly distinct for New Englanders." I've done some more digging and I've turned up a number of other references in various secondary sources: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. Frankly I think there's enough in all these sources to make an article and I'm reconsidering my vote. Unless of course you have some more references you can show me the other way! mikeman67 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Scholar turns up a handful of hits, and there are book mentions as well: [42]. Changing my vote for now, I think there are enough references in both media and scholarly works that it exists as a concept separate from New England. But open to a discussion on this, since they are obviously closely related. mikeman67 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is relevant whether the authors are linguists, or whether at least the authors are citing linguists. For a biology concept with its own new WP article, we would absolutely expect to cite biologists or authors referencing biologists. We would not want to cite people who simply have a vague, non-scientific "impression" or "perception" of this biological concept with no actual quotes/stats/data from biologists to back them up. A potential problem with only non-scientific work used to support the "truth" of a "Maine dialect" is that, as sociolinguistics has shown, the layperson’s perceptions of language can often differ from the reality. The local sound system heard in Maine (though very real) is in fact not limited to Maine (and so shouldn't be named as such), as I've said, since it belongs to a larger, already-named (North-)Eastern New England dialect, which currently has its own WP write-up under New England English (and whose most famous sub-variety is the Boston accent). Yes, there are some localized differences in all dialects, but enough in just Maine to merit a whole new, separate article? My linguistic basis on this topic comes from Charles Boberg, William Labov, and others in works like the Atlas of North American English (see the top right-hand map on New England English, which comes from that source) and A Handbook of Varieties of English, who define coastal Maine as falling under the (North-)Eastern New England dialect. Only a significantly notable Maine accent should get its own page (under that name: "Maine accent"), or, if called "Maine dialect," there needs to be definitive proof that there is a dialect completely exclusive to Maine, which does NOT seem to be the linguistic consensus. Here's my examination of your sources: