Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 25

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

The result was Speedy deleted as a copyvio.. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Environment and Sustainability

Master of Environment and Sustainability (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 article is simple one sentence reproduced from http://grad.uwo.ca/prospective_students/programs/program_NEW.cfm?p=48 It lacks any context and needs to be added to substantially, but without becoming an advert, in order to remain in wikipedia A2-33 (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - The article, all one sentence of it, is a copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G11 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Merghart

Julian Merghart (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 is a self-admitted autobiography by someone who is also now making legal threats against me for "defamation" for asking that he doesn't write his own autobiography and it should be properly referenced. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Delete and salt please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per criterion G11. VQuakr (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:26, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. But is salting really necessary at this time? It sounds like he's likely to be blocked soon, anyway. Did you report the legal threat? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable musician, article tone is inappropriate with many promotional text. --///EuroCarGT 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete' per nom, no independent sources, and is quite possibly eligible for speedy deletion (also note that VQuakr has tagged it accordingly since this AFD was started). Jinkinson talk to me 23:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mayr-Melnhof

Mayr-Melnhof (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 could be a CSD but for the fact that the article is 9 years old. I cannot see how it would satisfy WP:GNG if written now. Thoughts? Leaky Caldron 14:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and how it hasn't been deleted in 9 years is beyond me.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per WP:LISTED, I believe the page has not been deleted till now. Though I believe more citations will be needed for the page. I have found some. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have update the page a little bit but could not do it completely so I have mentioned some of references in the talk page, please update the page accordingly. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject of this article is a 64-year old company that has been listed on a major stock exchange for 20 years. It has thousands of employees, and operations in more than a dozen countries extending over three continents. According to websites focusing on the industries in which it operates, such as this website and this website, it is a worldwide leader in its field. So the suggestion that the subject is not notable is absurd, and the fact that the article is not (presently) well written or referenced is irrelevant. Bahnfrend (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A listing on the New York Stock Exchange is enough to pass notability, so therefore there is no reason a listing on the Vienna Stock Exchange shouldn't be enough for notability either. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 01:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This book descrives them as a major European cartonboard company. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polyworld

Polyworld (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 software. damiens.rf 14:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Merge - to polyworld's programmer, Larry Yaeger. Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent RS coverage, and a search did not reveal additional RS coverage. Software is not independently notable, but the programmer appears to be.Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I found widespread coverage in probably hundreds of independent academic reliable sources, in English and many other languages. They include peer-reviewed journals, proceedings of papers presented at conferences, graduate theses, etc. I'd suggest following the search steps in WP:BEFORE part D before nominating articles, noting that it says the current poor state of an article is improper grounds for a deletion nomination. A few of the several books that discuss Polyworld:

• Chris Impey (2 June 2011). The Living Cosmos: Our Search for Life in the Universe. Cambridge University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-139-49981-1.
• György Kampis; István Karsai; Eörs Szathmáry (28 February 2014). Advances in Artificial Life: 10th European Conference, ECAL 2009, Budapest, Hungary, September 13-16, 2009, Revised Selected Papers. Springer. p. 141. ISBN 978-3-642-21282-6.
• John Johnston (2008). The Allure of Machinic Life: Cybernetics, Artificial Life, and the New AI. MIT Press. p. 266. ISBN 978-0-262-10126-4.
• Christopher G. Langton; Katsunori Shimohara (1997). Artificial Life V: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. MIT Press. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-262-62111-3.
• Juan J. Romero; Penousal Machado (13 November 2007). The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music. Springer. p. 301. ISBN 978-3-540-72877-1.
• Rolf Pfeifer (1998). From Animals to Animats 5: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. MIT Press. p. 536. ISBN 978-0-262-66144-7.
• Luis Mateus Rocha (1 August 2006). Artificial life X: proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems. MIT Press. p. 331. ISBN 978-0-262-68162-9.
• Olaf Sporns. Networks of the Brain. MIT Press. p. 303. ISBN 978-0-262-28892-7.
• James D. Westervelt (1 January 2001). Simulation Modeling for Watershed Management. Springer. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-387-98893-1.
• Sarah Kember (15 April 2013). Cyberfeminism and Artificial Life. Routledge. p. 116. ISBN 978-1-134-55191-0.
• Jean-Arcady Meyer; H. L. Roitblat; Stewart W. Wilson (1993). From Animals to Animats 2: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. MIT Press. p. 385. ISBN 978-0-262-63149-5.
• Russell K. Standish; Mark A. Bedau; Hussein A. Abbass (2003). Artificial Life 8. MIT Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-262-69281-6.
• Pattie Maes (1996). From Animals to Animats 4: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior. MIT Press. p. 485. ISBN 978-0-262-63178-5.
• Mathieu Capcarrere (29 August 2005). Advances in Artificial Life: 8th European Conference, ECAL 2005, Canterbury, UK, September 5-9, 2005, Proceedings. Springer. p. 775. ISBN 978-3-540-28848-0.
• Jordan Pollack (January 2004). Artificial Life IX: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Artificial Life. MIT Press. p. 268. ISBN 978-0-262-66183-6.
• Max A. Bramer; Vladan Devedzic (2004). Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations: IFIP 18th World Computer Congress : TC12 First International Conference on Artificial Intelligence Applications and Innovations (AIAI-2004), 22-27 August 2004, Toulouse, France. Springer. p. 56. ISBN 978-1-4020-8150-7.
• Christoph Adami (1998). Artificial Life VI: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Life. MIT Press. p. 384. ISBN 978-0-262-51099-8.
• Sabine Heller (October 2009). Artificial Life - What Is Artificial Life?. GRIN Verlag. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-640-43506-7.
• Stefan Helmreich (2000). Silicon Second Nature: Culturing Artificial Life in a Digital World. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-20800-1.
• Kevin R. Grazier (21 August 2013). The Science of Michael Crichton: An Unauthorized Exploration into the Real Science Behind the Fictional Worlds of Michael Crichton. BenBella Books, Inc. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-935251-41-5.

Just search for polyworld on scholar.google.com and books.google.com for more references. ––Agyle (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Larry Yaeger. Dozens of trivial mentions don't add up to significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have been more selective in my examples; I was responding to Dialectric being unable to find a single independent RS reference to Polyworld, and included only book citations for ease of citing. By trivial, I assume you mean one-line descriptions, or mentions like "We decided to use Polyworld." There are many RS references with multiparagraph discussions of Polyworld. Also WP:SIGCOV pertains to general notability, while this more appropriately falls under WP:NSOFT. “Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria: The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement.” The software was foundational within the field of Artificial Life, and is still relevant twenty years later; Google Scholar shows 195 articles/books/papers that cite Yaeger's original 1994 PolyWorld: Life in a new context.

• Mathieu Capcarrere (29 August 2005). Advances in Artificial Life: 8th European Conference, ECAL 2005, Canterbury, UK, September 5-9, 2005, Proceedings. Springer. p. 775. ISBN 978-3-540-28848-0.

Only a single reference, but a significant one, in introducing the topic of Artificial Life programs: “Yaeger's Polyworld is a seminal example in which agents interact utilizing coulour vision.” Consider the term "seminal example" when evaluating it against the WP:NSOFT's inclusion of any software “discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.”

• McCormack, Jon; Dorin, Alan (2002). "Ways of Seeing: Visualization of Artificial Life Environments" (PDF). Preprint for Beyond Fitness: Visualizing Evolution, Alife 8, Smith, Bird, Bullock (eds), MIT Press 2002.

Page-and-a-half discussion, with screenshot, discussing Polyworld in the context of ALife software. Includes “Polyworld is an important and significant contribution to the field of Artificial Life. It, and simulations like it, help to confirm that many of Alife's basic tenets and goals are valid – that it may be possible to broaden our definition of life and our knowledge of living systems via simulation.”

• John Johnston (2008). The Allure of Machinic Life: Cybernetics, Artificial Life, and the New AI. MIT Press. p. 265–267. ISBN 978-0-262-10126-4.

Page and half or so contrasting Polyworld and Tierra. "On these grounds alone, Polyworld clearly qualifies as one of the most complex of ALife worlds." (This was written 14 years after Polyworld's introduction).

• Dam, A. C. (2005). "The Biological Validity of Evolving Artificial Life" (PDF). 3th Twente Student Conference on IT. University of Twente.

Includes 2 paragraph intro, then a one page detailed description, then analysis/comparison to other ALife software.

• Christopher G. Langton; Katsunori Shimohara (1997). Artificial Life V: Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on the Synthesis and Simulation of Living Systems. MIT Press. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-262-62111-3.

Describes Polyworld as the inspiration for a new ALife program Gaia; single paragraph summary of Polyworld, followed by several comparisons over ensuing pages with specific features or behaviors of Polyworld.

• Bornhofen, Stefan; Lattaud, Claude (2006). "Outlines of Artificial Life: A Brief History of Evolutionary Individual Based Models". 3871: 226–237. doi:10.1007/11740698_20. ISSN 0302-9743. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Half page description of Polyworld, then discussed in comparison to two similar-class EIBMs; it was chosen for an 11 page "brief history" of these types of programs, which the author describes as a "non-exhaustive survey of the constitutive work of the last twenty years".

• Chris Impey (2 June 2011). The Living Cosmos: Our Search for Life in the Universe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 130–133. ISBN 978-1-139-49981-1.

Two paragraph description to open a short section on ALife, with a couple mentions going back to Polyworld in following pages.

• Stefan Helmreich (2000). Silicon Second Nature: Culturing Artificial Life in a Digital World. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-20800-1.

Here's a case where I think a dozen trivial references do establish something; Polyworld is mentioned twelve different times in this book (not counting in citations), sometimes just for one-sentence example, but the frequent, common references like that are illustrative of its being an well known, important work in its field.

Also consider Yaeger's dozen or more papers on Polyworld, by himself and with collaborators, spanning two decades. While non-academic software authors writing about their own work would be considered primary sources, remember that Yaeger is being published in peer-reviewed journals, or having papers accepted at significant academic conferences, so they are themselves reliable sources. A reason you don't have lots of redundent in-depth reviews of PolyWorld is that they aren't needed within academia the way they are with commercial software, as "(Yaeger 1994)" pretty well covers the topic, and virtually anyone in the field of Artificial Life would be familiar with the software and its fundamental concepts. I'll list just four of Yaeger's papers here:

• Yaeger, Larry. "PolyWorld: Life in a new context". Proc. Artificial Life 3:year=1994.

His original conference paper, references Polyworld throughout.

• Yaeger, Larry S. (2009). "How evolution guides complexity". HFSP Journal. 3 (5): 328–339. doi:10.2976/1.3233712. ISSN 1955-2068.

A Yaeger journal article that references Polyworld throughout.

• Yaeger, Larry S.; Sporns, Olaf (2006). "Evolution of neural structure and complexity in a computational ecology" (PDF). Artificial Life X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems.

Another Yaeger conference paper that references Polyworld throughout.

• Lizier, Joseph T.; Piraveenan, Mahendra; Pradhana, Dany; Prokopenko, Mikhail; Yaeger, Larry S. (2011). "Functional and Structural Topologies in Evolved Neural Networks". 5777: 140–147. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21283-3_18. ISSN 0302-9743. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Another Yaeger journal article that references Polyworld throughout.

I could cite a lot more, but if you're still not convinced, I assume more of the same won't sway you.

––Agyle (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agyle, you've done a lot of work finding solid sources, and if you're planning on adding some of this content to the article, I'll change my vote to keep. As it is, the article is so thin that a redirect or merge still makes more sense to me.Dialectric (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The academic coverage by Argyle (good job!) establishes notability for this software. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to Larry Yaeger. Independent coverage is barely a sentence or two. He may have published a lot about this, but the publications aren't highly cited in Google Scholar (~300 citations combining all papers is too low for Wikipedia article). I don't see why a separate page is justified when his bio is barely a stub itself. This is basically the main thing he is known for [1]. His h-index is only 15, which itself is problematic for an WP:ACADEMIC in this field, but that's for another discussion. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone not using his real name, you can only find two independent sentences on the topic the entire internet??!? Are you KIDDING me?? I posted an anotated list of references from six other authors ranging from two paragraphs to two pages each, just one post above yours. Sorry but this is just ridiculous, people doing these reviews are incapable of using google, oblivious to Wikipedia's academic notability guidelines, and can't even read a spoon-fed synopsis of information. Please do Wikipedia a favor and don't visit AfD discussions. You're doing a disservice to the world. ––Agyle (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about that. You are right, I should have read your 2nd list more carefully: McCormack & Dorin (2002) and to a lesser extent Johnston (2008) and Bornhofen & Lattaud (2006) work toward satisfying WP:GNG. Combined with the moderate citation count, this a weak keep from me. It doesn't make a huge difference on which page this info is hosted though—Google finds section names just as well (and Wikipedia's own search follows/finds redirects.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't really bring myself to feel very strongly either way about this, so I've struck my vote. I will say that Agyle does make compelling arguments, but he probably needs to switch to decaff. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep In a few months if little has been done I'll consider taking this to AfD again as there appears to be WP:SIGCOV but I'm having an extremely difficult time piecing together whether all the coverage actually makes this a notable piece of software or rather a lengthy mention in another article. Mkdw^talk 04:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Leo Zöllner

Martin Leo Zöllner (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)

All the article tells us that Martin is an Australian, plus where he was born and died. Even after reading the reference, I am none the wiser with who Martin was.A little research found he is mentioned on a Boer war memorial, but nothing to make him notable. Periglio (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he was involved in a 1896 WA Supreme Court Case, but Trove does not have a lot indicating notability. The court case gets mentioned in 1919 and 1943 at "THE GOLDEN DAYS". Kalgoorlie Miner (WA : 1895 - 1950). WA: National Library of Australia. 25 July 1919. p. 1. Retrieved 22 January 2014. and "A PROSPECTING SYNDICATE'S REWARD". Kalgoorlie Miner (WA : 1895 - 1950). WA: National Library of Australia. 1 June 1943. p. 2. Retrieved 22 January 2014.. Paul foord (talk) 02:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment more at Australians in the Boer War: Oz-Boer Database Project and at "WAR NOTES". The Register (Adelaide, SA : 1901 - 1929). Adelaide, SA: National Library of Australia. 13 May 1902. p. 5. Retrieved 23 January 2014. -- widow and three children denied a pension. Paul foord (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All he rates is two paragraphs in his father's Australian Dictionary of Biography article. The alternative is to redirect to his father. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Whereas indeed we need references, it is also true that Grade II listed buildings have a good chance to be notable. Defaulted to keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhydspence Inn

Rhydspence Inn (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)

Wholly lacking any in-line refs. No evidence of any notability. Sure, it's 14 century but that isn't that unusual in this area. Reads more like advertising.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the current owner has updated the page and parts of it may look like a biased article, it still contains history and an explanation of the historic building. Over the years they have had to contend with various factions to keep the place going. The last thing they need now is somebody with far too much time on their hands picking petty arguments over the content of the Wikipedia page entry. I say leave it be. I will ensure that more historic and informative information is added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James99uk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am sure that you are well meaning in your comments James, but what or what not the owners have done is not material here. What matters is notability and it may be worth reading the wikipedia guidelines before commenting further. It also does concern me that your only edits have been on this article and this page suggesting that you may have both a vested interest and a potential conflict of interest. Regards  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A Grade II-listed building, according to English Heritage.[2] While Grade II-listed buildings are not automatically notable, there is a good chance they are, and I think this one is probably enough of a landmark to just about meet the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Before this comes back for for a 5th try, please try and come up with something more original than, "It's still not notable" -- RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Troemel

Brad Troemel (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)

still reads like a resume Ella787 (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced of Brad Troemel's notability. The clarifications and insertions provided by user OR drohowa in late November 2013 help tremendously, but saying that his writing has been "featured on" The New Inquiry, for instance, feels disingenuous. If we had Wikipedia entries on every writer who regularly published in such literary magazines, or who had tumblrs with a lot of followers and which generated critical discussion, we would ahve many, many more entries. There remain discrepancies between the entry itself and the talk page. The talk page seems to suggest that this entry should be kept because he has shown at PS1; however, the entry itself says that he has lectured at places like PS1-- a much, much lower threshhold of notability. This page still reads like a résumé with insufficient external links that don't read like listings on a CV.

• Delete - Not notable yet ...though I question why an editor/editors are registering new accounts to repeatedly nominate this article. But the article still doesn't stand up to scrutiny, despite the enthusiastic work by a Wikipedian-in-Residence no new coverage has surfaced. It fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. None of the biographical information is cited to independent sources. We have one lengthy review of an exhibition of work by the collective "JOGGING", of which Troemel is a part. But one review of a group show does not equate to notability of Troemel or his artwork. The lengthy interview in The Daily Dot is obviously Troemel speaking at length about his own work (evidently not a reliable secondary source). There is a short intro in the Huffington Post about his Etsy store, and then another lengthy interview. As the nominator says, Troemel didn't exhibit at MoMA PS1, he was a speaker at a book launch. I think we need to recognise that self-publicists on the internet can give themselves the mistaken feeling that they are widely known and important. There's still little evidence that Troemel has been widely noticed. Bear in mind I dislike recommending articles about artists for deletion, but this guy is young, active throughout the internet age, working in the middle of a major US city, so if there is any significant coverage about him it is likely to be available online. Sionk (talk) 19:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am sick of the repeated AfD for the same article. Yes it's borderline, but Wikipedia is not running out of space for entries. Previous nominators have been shown to have personal animus. Here we have an SPA making the nomination. "Ella", please move on. Note to an Admin - the missing third AfD was cancelled by DGG, this repeat AfD ridiculous and abusive, and should be closed quickly also.--Nixie9✉ 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looked through the sources and believe enough of them are sufficient for this type of topic. -- GreenC 06:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - reviewed the referenced articles and resources and he seems like someone who is notable in his area, and across the board. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khloë Terae

Khloë Terae (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)

Inadequately sourced article about a minor model. Supposedly she has appeared in Playboy magazine, but the article sources merely support her participation in Playboy's Miss Social, a monthly non-nude social media competition. I'm not able to find any other reliable sources that discuss the subject in any detail. Fails WP:NMODEL. - MrX 18:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Too soon for this model. She's not yet got sigcov. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Torres

Susan Torres (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 one has shown any wiki-love for this WP:BLP1E in four years even after other zombie mom cases have come forward. Clearly not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's one heck of a "one event", but much of the coverage is limited to a very short period of time in 2005. If there was a page for say, women giving birth while brain dead, I'd suggest that she get a mention there but I don't know if a page exists or how we'd go about setting it up if it doesn't. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, we might be able to merge some of the information into the article for brain death, although I'd prefer if someone from one of the medical wiki-projects did a little info digging to find the other cases and general information about what goes on during all of that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article could be expanded to include concerns about notability. She meets the two WP:BASIC criteria (multiple secondary sources), is notable for its uniqueness, and is about an issue that is quite topical. Additionally, neglected articles is not in itself a reason to delete. This article might be merged into a list of such cases at a later date, if so desired. --LT910001 (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attentio

Attentio (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)

Declined Prod (on a technical ground). Article has only one cited fact which is cited to a Press Release written and released by Attentio. There is a list of external links that have some content, but in general this company does not seem to pass the notablity guideline in addition to the WP:42 test. Hasteur (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteShows no notability per wp:gng nor wp:42.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So the Telegraph's detailed coverage of its history and its start up is not helpful to GNG?[3] Or some more scholarly analyst using their models?[4] They are used by numerous major businesses and I don't think we need to go through the press releases in a foreign language for each one. A good faith attempt was made with the external links and that and their history seems to push the boundary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, agree with analysis provided by ChrisGualtieri, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So one article gives enough to meet GNG? Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. 2 sources are just barely tipping the pan, however the Verifyability means that we need to strip this article down to the singular cited fact which is to a press release which means a blank page. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • By itself no. This is a minor mention in the external links for the companies listed - same as on their website. The 404ed link resolves to a minor mention on this archive.org. The Attentio official blog is the main source for some generic run of the mill sources to fill out some of the details for business details that are neither self-serving or dubious.[5] The better 404 linked which I found an archive.org hit for is this and it is better. Though I think this is a good starting point, our coverage of notable businesses has always been knee-jerk and even Fortune 1000 are not covered, many not beyond trivial stubs. Though these just came from the external links already present on the article, which likely helps meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • ChrisGualtieri I know that AFD isn't supposed to be for cleanup, but it might be a good idea to wire these improvements into the article. I got pinged on my talk page regarding a WP:OSE style argument for an AfC draft, so the logical step was to nominate this article on the grounds that it didn't pass muster. Hasteur (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although one article can be enough, I consider the article in the Telegraph an example of PR. I know we use it as one of the most reliable sources, but that doe not mean that everything in it is equally reliable. Signs of being based on PR i is the emphasis on the origin story of the company, the extensive quotes from the developer, the paragraphs about just who has adopted it, and the lack of attention to other programs for doing the same or similar things. I congratulate whatever PR agent it was who was successful in placing this story for his achievement, but PR it remains. (I have noticed several other WP articles that rely on tech-based articles in the same publication that also seem to be PR) DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with DGG. The main source for this article looks a bit too promotional. Many news sources run press releases with absolutely no disclosure, and this looks a bit too much like a press release. If it were truly notable, then we wouldn't have to settle for contested sources. There's a small amount of coverage for this corporation, but not what I would call significant; mostly, it's limited to fundraising. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Besides the in-depth coverage in the Telegraph, the company is mentioned is several books on social media monitoring [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] (all from reputable, even academic publishers), so it's not simply a case of a lucky break with one journalist. It's true that there are a lot of such companies. There were also a couple of articles about it in Techcrunch [16], something that is uncommon for European start-ups. It might be more suitable to create a single article for all/most of them, with one paragraph for each. But then having the same content spread across a bunch of stubs isn't all that different... One of those tc articles (from 2009) does say that it's crowded market place and lists plenty of competitors [17], so that should alleviate DGG's concern that it's merely disguised PR. Also a bit of coverage here when they opened an Asia HQ in Singapore. Also, their product called Trendpedia has bit of in-depth coverage itself [18] on ReadWrite (and yes that article does mention a competitor's product) and it's also mentioned in about a dozen books. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The company may have actually flopped and gone bankrupt already [19], but that's not a reason to delete. Also, I fixed the link to this article in an INSEAD on-line publication, which is also mostly about Attentio, although unlike the Telegraph piece, it does talk about its competitors. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daryl Prince Productions

Daryl Prince Productions (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)

Only 1 RS mentions production company for film that has at least three attached to it, no other sources found beyond mere corporation listings. No notability established under WP:GNG Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Prince Azim or delete. WP:TOOSOON for this production company. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Indiewire, and other film sources are silent thus far, with the exception of the trivial mention cited in the article. Once it gets a few more films under its belt, it might start making waves. Until then, it's simply not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Conference on Computer Vision. Merge any relevant material and then redirect to target -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Everingham Prize

Mark Everingham Prize (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 article was dePRODed by its author. While this prize may well be notable, there are concerns that insufficient third-party sources exist in order to comply with Wikipedia's notability criteria for stand-alone articles, and where the named recipients may not be notable according to WP:BLP, WP:LISTPEOPLE, and WP:NLIST. One solution may be merging to the main article at IEEE Computer Society. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAMI Young Researcher Award. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV, held in odd numbered years) and the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV, held in even numbered years). Fails to meet notability as a stand-alone article. Notably more awkward than with awards given at one conference consistently, but the division of the twin conferences is somewhat awkward in general. Within the articles, you could have a single paragraph explaining the award, linking to the sibling conference's Mark Everingham Prize section, and listing the awards given at that particular conference. ––Agyle (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to International Conference on Computer Vision per nom and Agyle.4meter4 (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  08:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Fuchs

Marian Fuchs (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)

While this article technically meets WP:NSPORT, the only claim to notability is a brief Liga I appearance just under four years ago. More importantly, the article so clearly fails WP:GNG that it falls under the part of NSPORT that says the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. (emphasis theirs) Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linas Klimavičius, amongst others. GiantSnowman 12:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above, clear consensus that older players must have a significant number of WP:FPL appearances to pass GNG. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has played in fully professional league. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL. He's not an older player ... he's 21! Nfitz (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Nfitz:, that's not the argument here. As I am sure you know WP:GNG trumps any other notability guideline. It is accepted that he is a technical WP:NFOOTY pass, but as GS has shown above there is clear consensus that this is not relevant if a player plays only briefly in a fully professional league and then does nothing else to garner sufficient significant reliable coverage elsewhere to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Your missing my point. I don't think that example applies, as I don't think 3 years is briefly. Nor do I think he's an older player that this is often used for. Nor do I think there was clear consensus - there are as many examples of the opposite happening. Nfitz (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - please show these examples then. My experience is the exact opposite, hence why GS is able to provide a long list of examples. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What's the point? If I find one, you'd ask for more. If I found ten, you'd say they weren't done properly. Am I wrong? Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - For starters, the "older player" argument is slightly nonsensical; as Nfitz rightly pointed out, he's 21. He also doesn't fail GNG anywhere near as comprehensively as some people are trying to make out. [20] is neither purely routine, or trivial. That website has also got some other quotations from him, and maybe some more pieces, but it verifies that he was part of the Romanian Under-19 team as well [21], for example. Claiming he is totally non-notable is not something that matches the facts; he passes NFOOTBALL, and is at least partway on his way to meeting GNG as well (with a decent Romanian search, he may well pass it). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for researching Luke. I agree that the sporttim.ro piece is significant coverage, but it is from a blog so I'm not sure it fits the reliable source requirement. I couldn't find much of anything about Fuchs in gsp.ro or prosport.ro (which are the main national sports newspapers in Romania, see List of newspapers in Romania), so I'm wary of claims the article could meet the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG; based off historical AfDs that have had similar discussions, I think this article should be deleted. I have not seen much here to convince me otherwise. JMHamo (talk) 13:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lukeno94. Subject passes the soccer-specific notability guideline by his appearance in the Romanian top division in recent years, which already makes him different from most of those AfDs listed above whose subjects had minimal appearances in the Russian third tier or whatever years ago, and where no secondary sources could be found. I'm not competent enough in the Romanian language or well enough acquainted with sources written in it to declare categorically that the subject clearly fails GNG. It seems to me that there's enough readily available non-trivial coverage to make it more than likely that he passes it. However, it does no harm to remember the lead section of WP:GNG (emphasis theirs):

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline

cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Delete - a review of online Romanian-language sources indicates that Fuchs appears in a few match reports, transfer announcements and an article noting that he might be named to the substitute's bench in 2010. There may be simply isn't significant coverage (this article is close), so NFOOTBALL may be isn't really satisfied for an article that so clearly doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hang on a second, did you read [22], which I highlighted? That definitely counted as significant coverage, since there is four paragraphs on the guy, some of which are an interview. In conjunction with that source you highlighted, surely this does confirm that GNG is satisfied? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but sporttim.ro is a blog. I'm not sure it is a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. Jogurney (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it? If that's the case, then I do apologize - all I have is Google Translate, and we all know how good that is! :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you click on login ("intra in cont" in Romanian), you'll quickly see that it's self published through WordPress. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough :) I don't need to change my vote though, just note that I am now disregarding the source I found and am using the source Jogurney found as the basis for my weak keep. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• However if you click on editorial ("Redacţia" in Romanian) you'll see rather less quickly with the help of online translation tools that the site covers all local sport in the Timisoara area, has named correspondents, and its owner, Mihai Comşulea, who also wrote the piece about Mr Fuchs, claims to have 22 years editorial and journalistic experience in television and print media and to have had two books about football published. Which in terms of reliability would appear to rank it a bit above a random blog. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you. Although the website is self-published, it appears to be the work of experienced sports journalists. Seems like a reliable source after all. Perhaps this article can pass GNG, so I'm updating my !vote.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese School in Bucharest

Japanese School in Bucharest (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 can see no conclusive indication of notability here.

• High schools are generally considered notable, but this is not, as far as I can tell, a high school.
• While some international schools are notable, there is nothing magic about the term "international school" that automatically confers notability.
• As far as I can discern, there are no independent sources in English or in Romanian covering this institution.
• Regarding Japanese sources, all we are given, aside from the school website, is this. I may as well give a link to the machine translation, as well as to a translation of the parent site.
  • From what I can tell, this is a report submitted by a music teacher who worked at the school, one of many (some 60 a year) reports of Japanese teachers who have had experience at overseas schools. That's all well and good, but a self-submitted, unreviewed work report doesn't do much in terms of demonstrating notability. Unless we consider all such reports evidence of a particular school's notability (which would be absurd), we do need some sort of objective account about the school.
  • Moreover, this report, if anything, undermines claims to notability, informing us as it does that the school hosts at most 29 students, and 20 on average. I'm afraid there's little precedent for considering as notable a 20-pupil elementary school, barring extenuating circumstances like obvious notability derived from third-party sources, even if said school is Japanese and international. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to secondary sources: the book on Japanese schools and the Romanian government source newspaper. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are other Japanese-language sources that discuss the school. Take a look at Google Books. I asked about these at the Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Japanese_help:_Which_of_the_following_are_good_secondary_sources_for_Japanese_School_in_Bucharest.3F Reference desk and I would like some help on what these are saying. Normally I'd do a Google News archive search but its functionality to do that seems to have been taken away, so I've been hampered in that way. But a few things...

This school's purpose is to educate children of Japanese nationals abroad. It is a nihonjin gakko and is an equivalent of a French or German or American international school. However it's true that it has no high school component. Typically local nihonjin gakko only cover elementary and junior high. In Japan junior high is the final compulsory education stage, while high school is not compulsory. There are Japanese boarding high schools in the United States, United Kingdom, Switzerland, and Singapore.

Considering the mission of these schools (educating Japanese nationals) especially considering that a Japanese person may not put their children in the local schools, low student enrollments aren't unusual.

• The Japanese School of Mumbai serves a Japanese community in a major metropolis, and it has a grand total of 17 students in 2008.
• The Cairo Japanese School had 28 students in February 2011.

Remember that WP:GNG allows for in-detail, independently produced reports about something to count towards notability. A possible hitch with that music teacher source is the independent. Part. According to Wikipedia:GNG a source can describe the subject in detail and be published by someone else and be A-OK. But if the author has had a significant connections with the school then it wouldn't be independent and wouldn't count as part of GNG. The relevant part excludes "advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent." I chose that source because Tokyo Gakugei University has it on its website, and so has published it.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2: Found article from the Romanian Ministry of Education that seems to talk about this school. I'll use Google translate and see what I find.

While there were some English newspapers in Romania it seems like their websites went down and that makes it harder to search for things. I found one, The Diplomat, that has articles that talk about Romanian education in general and have a profile of the Japanese school but I don't think that one will count for GNG.

WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #3: Thanks to Oda Mari's help I discovered one of the source books was a book all about overseas Japanese schools (nihonjin gakkō or full-day Japanese schools and Hoshū Jugyō Kō or supplementary Japanese schools). It seems like this book has enough information about the Bucharest school to make it pass WP:GNG. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #4: Biruitorul informed me that the source on the Romanian ministry website was from Cotidianul, which was a Romanian newspaper. Thank you very much for finding that. That should help prove GNG. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #5: I found that the school is politically (it isn't physically next door because the school is in Voluntari but the embassy itself is in Bucharest proper) attached to the Japanese Embassy in Romania (Oda Mari examined Japanese characters on an image on the school's homepage stating the name of the school). WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've found new sources (not the reports of Japanese teachers) that support notability. These sources themselves have not been contested. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Brian Lowdermilk.  Sandstein  09:02, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Unauthorized Autobiography of Samantha Brown

The Unauthorized Autobiography of Samantha Brown (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 musical. No extensive third party coverage. Sources are extremely poor, and related to the "musical" and its creators. This was deleted by PROD and should have stayed there ES&L 10:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is coverage in LA Times[23] and Connecticut press[24][25]. I'm not sure if that's enough to keep. A merge to composer Brian Lowdermilk might be better. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been finding that as well. I found some Playbill mentions. This might squeak by just because it seems to have been relatively widely performed for a small musical. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Although if it's not kept, I'd say it should rather be merged to Kait Kerrigan since she was the original author of the work in its most basic state. Lowdermilk helped with a second version and while I don't know exactly how much input he gave to the new version, Kerrigan would be an easier redirect target just because she came up with the concept. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't mind where it's merged: it's usual to list musicals by composer, but if the composer didn't play a major role it would make sense to include in Kait Kerrigan, since her page will link to Lowdermilk anyway. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I think this should be merged with the article on the writer(s). There is no real secondary coverage on the musical itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 06:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bartercard

Bartercard (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:NCORP (WP:CORPDEPTH). I couldn't find any news sources on a Google Search beyond a passing mention in The Guardian (with no details) and that they are the sponsors of some sports clubs, but notability is not inherited from them. No WP:RS for the organisation itself, the two references are merely to legal advice. Edit history seems to indicate significant editing by sources close to the organisation. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the national publication The Australian Financial Review here: http://www.afr.com/p/technology/ato_targets_bitcoin_users_oawpzLQHDz2vEUWtvYLTWI, which makes it noteworthy. If the editing seems biased by the company, then change it; but that doesn't go to whether it is sufficiently noteworthy. 219.90.211.237 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention is one sentence: "Paul Drum said that the ATO should be equipped to tackle the risks posed by the new, 'almost fictitious', currency, as it was akin to others it had dealt with in the past. That included the Bartercard popular a decade ago." Similarly, the citation I found in the Guardian is:

• Siegle, Lucy (29 December 2013). "Is bartering better?". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 January 2014. "For an idea of scope and scale, look to a system such as Bartercard." (The hyperlink is in the online article.)

Neither of these is "significant coverage", they are each as "passing mention". The "two references to legal advice" I mentioned in the proposal are rulings by the ATO (Australian Tax Office), and a company does not have to be notable to get the ATO's attention.

As for changing it, why would I do that when I believe it should be deleted? If the consensus is to keep it, then I will change it, not while it is open at an XfD. And I didn't say the editing was biased by the company. Si Trew (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Google (especially GNews after the latest "upgrade") does not cover 1990s/early 2000s Australian topics very well due to most of the reliable sources (especially newspapers) having deleted most of their online archives. Fairfax is the exception, but Google doesn't see their archives, you have to use their own search system, and guess what, there is a lot of significant coverage. The-Pope (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good work by The-Pope to show notability.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boise Kimber

Boise Kimber (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)

as per WP:BLP1E, I find coverage that merely confirms he is a minister and was commissioner of the fire department. he is only really known for the court case hence WP:BLP1E. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per WP:Google test Huffington Post calls Kimber "powerful player within the black community".[26] He has appeared on C-SPAN in 2001, way before the lawsuit.[27] He is the subject of book describing Kimber other actions, which makes them WP:RS.[28] and has recently appeared in other news.[29][30][31] In my opinion, WP:BLP1E] is inapplicable as Kimber was "notorious" before and after the Supreme Court decision. Mhym (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:51, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sami A. Khan

Sami A. Khan (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:AUTHOR. Khan is a single book author. The article was created by editor Sunnysin, a single-purpose account. The article was proded by WikiDan61 shortly after its creation for lack of references. After external links were provided, WikiDan61 removed the prod. Delete or Merge and Redirect to book Red Jihad. --Bejnar (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Red Jihad. The author clearly fails WP:AUTHOR, but maybe not forever. Also please address the plagiarism of the biographical details in this interview. Lagrange613 01:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Would someone please close this, so that we can Merge and redirect to Red Jihad. --Bejnar (talk) 10:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was minimal input here, but the delete consensus seems clear enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ilija Dodić

Ilija Dodić (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)

Subject does not seem to meet notability standards of WP:BIO Agyle (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If his film Five Minutes to Twelve is notable (i.e. widely reviewed), that would probably make him notable per WP:DIRECTOR. However, it has been AfDed and I have serious doubts as to whether it is notable either (but my Serbian is not strong). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The IMDb link leads to someone else, but 5 to 12 is on IMDb with Ilija Dodić as director. I'm not sure if anyone at all can edit the database, though. Why not wait for the Serbian WP AfD outcome? Sparafucil (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2014 (UTC) Sparafucil (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe he will be notable one day, but today he's 18, and winning a high-school contest with a short film (now deleted) just does not cut it. No such user (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Martin451 23:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 05:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice to recreation in the future. This seems to be a bit too soon for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel & Unusual (album)

Cruel & Unusual (album) (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 cannot find any evidence that this album meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:NALBUMS or the general notability guide. No charting + no reviews = no significance that I can see. Note that the redlinked artist Black Sun Empire was recently deleted due to failing our notability requirements. — sparklism ^hey! 16:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 16:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I had previously nominated this for speedy deletion via WP:CSD#A9 but this was declined. — sparklism ^hey! 08:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I cannot find reviews or other critical coverage in reliable sources that would establish this album as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Jafari

Hossein Jafari (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)

Barely sourced, notability seems marginal at best Jac16888 ^Talk 18:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Strong delete - minor actor, no references. Notability is NOT inherited from brother DP 16:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NRVE - notability is not inherited. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Pratim Biswas

Kishore Pratim Biswas (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 artist. Only sources are self-published profiles at Artslant and Saatchi online. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Person is not notable.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:ARTIST (work in permanent collections of major museums, reviews in national newspapers, etc). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources for general notability nor anything that would qualify under artist specific notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per lacking notability...Modernist (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah IV Al-Sabah

Abdullah IV Al-Sabah (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)

Notability Dumaka (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Conversions from Islam are unusual, becuase sharia law prescribes the death penalty for apostacy. In this case there seems to be a question of veracity. Furthermore, publicising conversions is undesirable in many cases, because it lays the subject open to a greater risk of being murdered. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've searched in English and Arabic and the cited La Stampa article is the only reliable source I can find. The video interview where this guy discusses his conversion seems to have been broadcast on an Arabic Christian satellite channel called al-Haqiqa, which doesn't seem very well-known or reliable. So, definitely spike it.

By the by (this being my own instinct and not part of my rationale), if this is in fact the clip, the guy, who claims to be a Kuwaiti prince and the son of an ambassador to the UK, doesn't sound like a native Arabic speaker to me. —Neil 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the fact that the man is a fraudster (and he is, membership of Kuwait's royal family is public record, and this hasn't come up in any Arabic media) doesn't discount this article being notable, the fact that there are only two sources does. Two mentions of some nut claiming to be a prince doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Devotion (Anberlin album). --BDD (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

City Electric

City Electric (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 meet WP:NSONG Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Devotion (Anberlin album). -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Sunday Night Football results (1987–2005)

ESPN Sunday Night Football results (1987–2005) (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:NOT#STATS and WP:NOT#INFO, similar lists has been deleted in the past and nothing changed consensus wise. Prod removed with no rationale Delete Secret ^account 03:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep list articles are valid articles even though they largely contain "info" and "statistics" -- see argumentation at Wikipedia:Discriminate vs indiscriminate information--the list is discriminate and focused and is not confusing to the reader. WP:NOT#STATS and WP:NOT#INFO link to the same argument so that's really just one argument not two. Further, we normally keep well-prepared list of television episodes such as List of The Ren & Stimpy Show episodes and the many, many more just like it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Aside from being unreferenced, it's utterly useless. Wizardman 02:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no question that the references can be found and added. That is an editing issue, not a deletion issue. As for WP:USELESS, that argument is specifically listed as one to avoid in deletion discussion--specifically because there is no clarification why it is useful or useless. But even then--"useful" is not the measure we use, "notabaility" is.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Paulmcdonald. I'm going to have to vote keep on this one. We already have List of Monday Night Football results (1970–1989), List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009), List of Monday Night Football results (2010–present), and NBC Sunday Night Football results (2006–present). If we're going to retain all of those articles, it would look strange to have only the Sunday night results between 1987 and 2005 not be listed. Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• While I don't inherently object to the concept of having this article, I do object to the strange grouping of years. I am not entirely sure that this is notable, but it seems to fail the guideline that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and as such, admittedly weakly, I would support deletion or merging. Go Phightins! 00:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The grouping of years is not strange at all. ESPN aired games on Sunday nights from 1987 until 2005, therefore that's what is included in the list. I suppose merging it to create one list of all nationally televised Sunday Night NFL games would be acceptable; otherwise I vote to keep per Paulmcdonald's comments above. Highway99 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the clarification on the year grouping, however I still do not understand the cutoff at 2005. Nevertheless, I just fail to see how this is not a situation in which WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. Go Phightins! 03:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NBC took over Sunday Night Football in '06, hence, NBC Sunday Night Football results (2006–present). Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK; not sure why that didn't occur to me. Withdrawing my objection. Am now neutral.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The games are notable, the network and timeslot combo not so much. Monday night football is the exception to the rule. I'd also delete NBC Sunday nights for the same reason. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yeah, it's a little crufty, but I think the periodization makes sense and this was a marquee football telecast — akin to a TV series in viewership and cultural impact. Bottom line: the encyclopedia is better off with this rather than without it. Carrite (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per User:Secret - none of these games have any extra meaning or importance, pointless list. Gloss • talk 21:41, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy. There is clear consensus that this doesn't belong in the main article space in its current form, but as User:Northamerica1000 seems eager to work on it, I'll userfy it -- RoySmith (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of through trains in Japan

List of through trains in Japan (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)

PROD declined. Useless stub with no actual list of trains. Safiel (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to WP:Drafts namespace.Martin451 00:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Martin451 00:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Martin451 00:53, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Tagged as "CSD A3" - No content. --DAJF (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have declined the speedy deletion nomination on the page, and have expanded the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to WP:Drafts namespace or userfy until it can be worked on with reliable sourcing sufficient to demonstrate the basic notability for a Wikipedia article. At present, the article is titled "List of through trains", but consists of an arbitrary list of lines. --DAJF (talk) 09:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Wikipedia is not a train schedule, and this can be expected to change as schedules change. Mangoe (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The corresponding Japanese article https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%9B%B4%E9%80%9A%E9%81%8B%E8%BB%A2 has lots of references. A complete translation of the Japanese article would probably establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has no references at all. Those are all footnotes. Mangoe (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to WP:Drafts namespace and allow time for expansion per the availability of content at The Japanese Wikipedia article. Another option is to retain the article, which I have begun to improve and add content to. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improvements I've performed, and the article remains quite expandable. I'm also not opposed to moving it to Draft namespace. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, What list??.....There isn't one/any!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 07:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have expanded the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I wasn't expecting anyone to expand the article at all .. *face palm*, Now it has IMO I see no reason to delete. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 08:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did the first PROD, which the creator of the stub simply removed and ignored and added a category (how gracious) but nothing else, as I have had issue with atrocious starts by the same editor 3 and 4 years ago (ie ignoring usage of WP:RS requirements etc, still on the users unarchived talk page), however Northamericas adding material is hardly anything to write home about, still a marginal article in the current state, due to the lack of WP:RS - to substantiate the claims of the text since added - leave this still a candidate for deletion satusuro 09:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is not a train or travel guide.--Charles (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Watson

Theo Watson (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)

Little if any proof of notability of this video artist/programmer, apart from the paragraph in Blouin Art. Looking at his CV he doesn't make any claims of importance or success either. I can't see anything of note online - this guy is a young artist working in the interent age. fails WP:GNG/WP:ARTIST. Sionk (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd like to see if I can dig up something. His work has been shown in the MoMA and Tate if I'm not mistaken. Also, Being the co-creator of OpenFrameworks makes one notable in some circles. Michiel Duvekot (talk)|(contribs) 04:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added some material about his works in both MoMA and the Tate. WP:ARTIST #4 is aimed more at artists who create permanent artworks rather than the sort of ephemeral installation work that Watson does, but I think he's attracted sufficiently high-level attention to meet the spirit of that guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the high-level attention? If you know of any, maybe you could add it? Sionk (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the meaning of my words was not as clear as I thought. I meant that having shows in MoMA and the Tate is high level attention. And I already added them to the article before writing here. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see another independent source before saying keep DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems ok now and per above...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Sheppard

Phillip Sheppard (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)

As we've gone through many of these Survivor contestants articles, we've been redirecting the ones where WP:BLP1E applies. Sheppard is only known for his Survivor appearances, therefore all necessary information about him can be found in the articles on his seasons. He also wrote a novel of which notability is very questionable. However, simply being an author doesn't make you notable. Gloss • talk 18:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep for now, appeared on two seasons, and is an author. Also helps counter systematic bias due to the general lack of African American Survivor contestants with articles. Frietjes (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (4th nomination) - how many seasons you appear on the show or what place you come in does not make you notable. Also, "he's an author" is not a valid argument if he isn't a notable author. Plain and simple. Gloss • talk 19:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep for now, as through in my vote on the first AFD. ApprenticeFan ^work 02:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral This one's a tough call. He was a notable Survivor contestant and was involved with a well-selling novel; thus WP:BLP1E doesn't seem to apply here. However, he didn't exactly have a significant impact on the show like Richard Hatch or Rob Mariano and he didn't actually write the novel; his brother did. Phillip was only the character in the novel. It's hard to say whether these things really constitute enough notability for the encyclopedia. Most of the media coverage of him has only centered around Survivor and I have only found one source so far that mentions him outside that. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep certainly notable. two completely different seasons of a national tv show and published.. my opinion is the content could use some work. over time, say 10 years from now may end up a deletion if the article subject becomes irrelevant, but that a different topic for a different day DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:DIZwikwiki: Yes I agree that if the article is kept, it could use some fix ups. Not sure I agree though about deleting it in ten years, since notability is not temporary. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Environmental

Amazon Environmental (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 meet notability guidelines in WP:COMPANY. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OEL JeOS

OEL JeOS (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)

Software product which does not appear to pass WP:GNG, Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I could not find any sources to support notability. I was initially thinking of merge to the JEOS article, but this doesn't have enough notability for a mention there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Unclear why nobody has commented on this, but a third re-list seems pointless. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Casha

Kevin Casha (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 sufficiently show notability. Person appears awarded by organisations that he himself is in charge of. Lopifalko (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VMC Productions

VMC Productions (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)

VMC Productions fails WP:CORP. Nothing indicates notability. Dewritech (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Dark Tower (series). Mark Arsten (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gan (Stephen King)

Gan (Stephen King) (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 does not establish notability independent of Stephen King's works through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Doesn't seem notable. The only significant coverage I can find is in Stephen King's The Dark Tower: A Concordance, which is published by Hachette, who also publish the Dark Tower books.[32] I'm wondering if some of this could be merged. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of The Dark Tower characters. BOZ (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of The Dark Tower characters. This is an imperfect merge target, but it seems like the best choice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to The Dark Tower (series). Gan (Stephen King) has no secondary sources, and so should not be a stand alone article. As Gan is a plot device, not a character, it should be in the series article, not the list of characters. Interested editors should read WP:WAF, the content is too "in-universe". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either merge target works for me, really. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WindowsWear

WindowsWear (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)

Poorly sourced promotional article fails WP:CORPDEPTH Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThis article does not fail WP:CORPDEPTH, please find below additional sources of coverage that prove notability. Each link is from a unique source and multiple mentions by the same source are not included.

Major Newspapers:

Women's Wear Daily: http://www.wwd.com/retail-news/marketing-consumer-behavior/holiday-selling-has-begun-7261670?src=search_links

Wall Street Journal: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y9c01W4LVt8J:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB20001424127887323981304579077430749525094&hl=en&gl=us&strip=0

Estadão (one of the largest newspapers in Brazil): http://blogs.estadao.com.br/moda/2013/01/11/site-reune-vitrines-das-principais-lojas-no-mundo/

O Globo (one of the largest newspapers in Brazil): http://ela.oglobo.globo.com/blogs/nova-york/posts/2013/10/11/namorando-as-vitrines-da-quinta-avenida-511261.asp

Major Fashion Publications:

ELLE: http://www.elle.com/news/fashion-style/windowswear-website-launch-holiday-windows?click=news

Glamour: http://www.glamour.com/fashion/blogs/slaves-to-fashion/2012/11/you-can-start-browsing-those-s.html

Lucky: http://contributors.luckymag.com/post/windowswear

Redbook: http://www.redbookmag.com/beauty-fashion/tips-advice/windowswear-window-shopping

Refinery29: http://www.refinery29.com/windowswear

Vogue (Mexico): http://http://www.vogue.mx/articulos/compras-en-linea-online-windows-wear/3268

ELLE (Russia): http://www.elle.ru/moda/novosty/Novyj-sajt-WindowsWear-iz-zhizni-vitrin

Glamour (Brasil): http://colunas.revistaglamour.globo.com/styleapproach/2013/01/11/windows-wear-o-google-earth-das-vitrines-de-moda/

Racked: http://racked.com/archives/2012/12/10/10-best-dreamworthy-holiday-windows-from-london-paris-new-york.php

Investment Publications:

FashInvest: http://www.fashinvest.com/windowswear-receives-friends-family-financing-one-year-anniversary/

Travel Publications:

Time Out New York: http://www.timeout.com/newyork/things-to-do/windowswear

Speaking / university engagements:

Fashion Institute of Technology: http://www.fitnyc.edu/7894.asp

LIM College: http://www.limcollege.edu/news/13286.aspx

Berkeley College: http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/1516/905685/Newsletter_Oct13_v1_3.pdf

Celebrity followers:

Sofia Vergara (A+ list celebrity): https://twitter.com/SofiaVergara/following

Christian Louboutin (famous women's shoe designer): https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151618249826865&set=a.10151618244406865.1073741829.124842316864&type=1&theater

Stefano Gabbana (founder of Dolce & Gabbana): http://www.oninstagram.com/profile/following/stefanogabbana

Independent Fashion Publications:

NewNowNext: http://www.newnownext.com/windowswear-is-the-greatest-thing-to-ever-happen-to-window-shopping/04/2013/

StyleBistro: http://www.stylebistro.com/Shopping+News/articles/IKU-NRPtrXa/WindowsWear+Like+Giant+Tumblr+Shop+Windows

HauteTalk: http://www.hautetalk.com/2012/12/10/cocktail-hour-link-love-3/

The London Look: http://thelondonlook.com/fashion/windowswear-visual-merchandising-gets-social-media-treatment/

The Style Note: http://thestylenote.com/2012/12/13/noteworthy-008/

Fashion Pulse Daily: http://fashionpulsedaily.com/2012/12/12/see-holiday-windows-from-home/

StyleDemocracy: http://styledemocracy.com/ever-wanted-to-see-the-best-holiday-windows-in-the-world/

Digital Style Digest: http://www.digitalstyledigest.com/2012/12/display-mode-windowswear-takes-window-shopping-digital/

Camille Styles: http://camillestyles.com/christmas/weekend-notes-143/

Morena Rosa: http://www.morenarosa.com.br/blog/cultura-e-viagens/as-vitrines-pelo-mundo/

N Degrees: http://www.n-degrees.com/#!WindowsWearcom--/c36c/019D0FB9-1E19-47DD-AEAB-C029918F4620

Fashion Reverie: http://fashionreverie.com/?p=5888

Dalabooh: http://www.dalabooh.com/windowswear-the-number-one-resource-for-real-time-inspiration/

Trend Survivor: http://trendsurvivor.com/2013/12/18/holiday-shopping-paris/

• Keep This doesn't fall in with my reading of grounds to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. It has mentions in national and international sources, including reliable media. Note that it was previously prodded by same editor. Several editors appear to have been working to improve and lose the promotional and WP:NPOV stuff and, as it's a new page about a relatively new company that has some sound references, I'd suggest allowing this process to continue for a bit in the spirit of WP:CHANCE. Libby norman (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hi Libby, thanks for your comments. WP:CORPDEPTH looks for independent, in-depth, coverage in reliable sources. Most of the sources listed above are just "mentions"--how do you see that fitting in WP:CORPDEPTH? I'd also question the reliability and independence of many of the above sources. With regard to the point that I previously PRODded this article, in case you didn't know it is pretty standard to take something to an AfD if it is dePRODded. In this case, it was dePRODded by the author of the article. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response All the articles from major fashion publications are not just mentions, WindowsWear is the subject matter of the full article. These are all major fashion publications and I am not sure how many more different major fashion publications are necessary to make it notable. Fashion is a visual field and the depth comes from the amount of content from images vs. content from text and words. These are all full page articles and these publications don't talk about un-reputable / un-notable subjects. In addition there are mentions from national and international sources, reliable media, as well as reputable speaking engagements, and a celebrity public following. If you do not believe that the depth of coverage is adequate, then by the definition of WP:CORPDEPTH: " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple[1] independent sources should be cited to establish notability." This is proven in the above where multiple independent sources are cited. In regards to WP:CHANCE, "the original editor spends all his (limited) time trying to fight the deletion of the article. He is reluctant to make the edits that would change the minds of those recommending delete (assuming they even choose to revisit the article or discussion, which often doesn't happen) because he does not want to put so much work into an article if it's just going to wind up being deleted. So instead he spends his time on the deletion discussion explaining his position, and tries to convince others that he does indeed have verifiable information on the subject." - I believe this applies directly this is situation and would appreciate if you could allow this process to continue in the spirit of WP:CHANCE. 199.47.72.52 (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Hello, unknown IP! I did not say that all the articles from major fashion publications are just mentions. I asked how this fits WP:CORPDEPTH. Which publications are major? Which are not just mentions? What I see above is a long list with a lot of junk, such as Sophie Vergara's twitter. Let's see some specifics. As for WP:CHANCE, this seems to involve reading the mind of the original editor. I'm not qualified to do that. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Hi Logical Cowboy, thanks for your comments above. Sources listed are not 'passing mentions' by my definition. In 4 of the 8 references listed (Elle, Time Out, Glamour, Lucky), WindowsWear is the subject of the piece – actually 6 out of 8 if you count the two lesser quality refs of Refinery29 and Fashinvest. The Wall Street Journal is a good solid ref for establising names of the founders and the existence of the company, albeit a paragraph in a piece about life after Lehman Brothers. WWD – also a respectable business-facing source – gives us a 100-plus word paragraph in a piece on Christmas window displays, in which one of the company founders is used as a commentator on trends for Christmas display timings. Back to WP:CORPDEPTH and I'm struck by the fact that this suggests that if coverage is not substantial 'then multiple independent sources should be cited'. I'd say WindowsWear does provide multiple sources via these 8 references – enough to support the existing article. Libby norman (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response Added Vogue (Mexico) as an additional source. MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Northamerica1000 but it seems like consensus is reached, everyone wants to keep the article and several other editors have even been supportive in their time and efforts making enhancements to the original article. Logical Cowboy who started the deletion process hasn't been active in this discussion for the past 10 days, and I'm not sure if more time will result in more discussion.MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is something funny going on with voting. An IP tagged Mickey's earlier comments with a Keep vote [33]. Now Mickey is voting Keep (again?) [34]. This seems like double voting/ballot stuffing/WP:ILLEGIT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Hi Logical Cowboy, my intention was not to vote twice, rather to just reiterate support. I removed the duplicate Keep. Thank you.MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then why did you claim there is a "consensus?" Only three editors have opined. One is you, who created the article and have been tagging Wikipedia left and right to promote WindowsWear. Clearly you have a strong interest in promoting this site. Another is me, and I nominated it for deletion. It's worth reading WP:CONSENSUS. Since this debate was relisted due to lack of consensus, there haven't been any new policy-based arguments presented, or any additional editors involved. Logical Cowboy (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Thanks Logical Cowboy, I would like to know what is your definition of nobility for an organization is in the global fashion industry - maybe that would be a path forward to understanding what the issue is. This company is featured in Vogue, ELLE, Glamour, Lucky and according to Wikipedia, these are all notable fashion magazines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fashion_magazines. These publications do not cover un-notable organizations and their notability threshold is extremely high. There is further evidence supporting notability in features / mentions in notable newspapers and other notable publications (which are also notable because they all have Wikipedia pages) like The Wall Street Journal, WWD, The Estadão, Redbook, Refinery29, O Globo, Time Out New York - I do not understand what more evidence you need. I have also seen you reach out to another editor asking to opine directly in this deletion discussion - why do you have such a strong interest in deleting this article and reaching out directly to others about it when other editors have made positive contributions to this article and support it? MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Your comments are misleading in many ways. The Lucky source is a community-contributed blog. Most of the other sources are 100-word blurbs announcing the creation of the website--basically that it exists. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Response Notable publications listing "that it exists" - so this should be consistent as to why it should also exist on Wikipedia. 100-words may seem little to you but it is a tremendous amount of text for a fashion publication. Further, it is the depth of visual imagery with text that also counts that you are not weighing as evidence. Coverage is measured in both text and visuals and both are comprehensive. I asked you what is your definition of nobility for an organization is in the global fashion industry so others can understand your perspective. It could be, for instance, that you place no value on the notability of being featured by numerous, notable fashion publications globally that are cited as evidence, because it seems like this evidence is being dismissed and denied, and the other non-fashion related evidence seems to not be taken into consideration in providing a more in-depth perspective in the notability of this subject. MickeyMouse5349 (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research

Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research (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)

Pure press release, not supported by substantial third party sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING and lack of third party sources. Bishonen | talk 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Reads like a promotional flyer. Following exhaustive consultation with all stakeholders.... -- RoySmith (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined (producer)

Undefined (producer) (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)

WP:BLP. Music producer. Notability claimed, but not established by verifiable, reliable sources. Josh3580_talk/hist 07:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Fails WP:MUSICBIO lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 03:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I would say notable if the subject had more references and sources. DIZwikwiki (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revosiete

Revosiete (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)

Contested prod. Does not appear to meet the notability standard in WP:MUSIC - one EP, no indication it charted, no references indicating coverage in reliable sources, etc. Maybe there are some sources in Spanish, but my Spanish isn't good enough to confirm this and they don't look notable enough to me. Even their Facebook page has only 165 likes - suggesting they just aren't notable yet. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am still working on this article & still am going to put more information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.65.154 (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, they are getting more well known every single day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboyfresshh (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do i have to do to keep this on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnyboyfresshh (talk • contribs) 04:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Genocide (theory)

White Genocide (theory) (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)

Page previously deleted. Currently stub with little to no content. Poorly written. Previously voted "weak keep" on nomination last month, but nothing's improved... in fact it's worse. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wait, hang on. What happened to the article? What happened to the previous revisions prior to the 15th of Jan. -Portesamo217 (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was deleted previously (see 1). EvergreenFir (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted without discussion or consensus? -Portesamo217 (talk) 06:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears it was deleted as part of WP:BAN. Use who created it was banned. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please note the consensus in the previous discussion if anyone wants to raise issues over GNG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Genocide (theory). Ethically ^(Yours) 15:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: the difference between white genocide and Holocaust revisionism or 9/11 truthers is those conspiracy theories receive significant coverage in reliable sources. The previous incarnation of the article only had one academic source, which mentioned "white genocide" in passing. The only other reference was unverifiable (a book of conspiracies by Richard Roeper, of all people.) The new sources indicate the Stop White Genocide Project is just copy-pasting a mantra and astroturfing the Internet. Yes, people believe it; yes, there are a handful message boards where neo-nazis discuss the impending doom of the white race; no, it is not notable. Blackguard 00:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The first two sources are routine. These [35][36][37] state that there is no White Genocide. These [http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/can-whites-escape-post-mandela-bloodbath/][38][39] Do not explicitly mention the term "White genocide" at all in the body of the articles, although the last one includes it in its headline. If this is notable, then it's by the skin of its teeth, and we're left with the little stub of an article that we have now. I would suggest that the content relating to South Africa go to an appropriate article relating to South Africa race relations and the petition mentions could go to the Stormfront article (as Vice credited them with spreading the petition), if the talk pages of those articles agree that these events are notable enough to get mentions.LM2000 (talk) 08:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• New Idea? Merge/add to white supremacy articles? This "White Genocide" fringe theory seems like it is mostly confined to white nationalist and white supremacist circles and people associated with them. So perhaps a better idea here might be to give a mention to the "white genocide" theory on one of the pages White nationalism or White supremacy, then make this a redirect to the appropriate page. Note that just because something may be WP:NN and so cannot have its own article, that doesn't necessarily preclude a mention of it in some other article. Whaddya think? mike4ty4 (talk) 12:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to improve the wording for the heck of it... mike4ty4 (talk) 13:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Describing people protesting against genocide as "supremacist" makes Wikipedia look very silly. 87.113.72.77 (talk) 10:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into one of the white supremacist articles seems like an better alternative. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep widely referenced topic in mainstream media and growing in importance and usage. If Wikipedia fails to define it, many other more dubious sources will. 84.93.179.46 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's purpose is not to "define" things; rather, merely to report on what is already out there. mike4ty4 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete or Merge this idea does seem to be one that only exists in white supremacist groups. If it is a theory of theirs then it belongs on page covering that topic. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to White Nationalism or delete. This is a WP:FRINGE theory that does not have mainstream acceptance. It could possibly be discussed as a belief in White Nationalist groups. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this appears to be a growing issue of concern with even Russian President Vladimir Putin having spoken about immigration policies leading to the eradication of the original peoples of Europe.rt.com news Wikipedia can't hope to keep itself relevant by allowing censorship. 84.203.178.114 (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not censorship; rather, it's a matter of notability and the existence of reliable sources to be able to support a WP article. In particular, what is needed to get notability in the sense of Wikipedia is that one must be able to find multiple reliable sources discussing this topic specifically. Especially like some scholarly articles or something like that on the "Theory of White Genocide" -- if such exist, that would be good material on which to base a WP article. Brief mentions and "innuendo" in news articles and political figures' quips do not constitute the kind of reliable, comprehensive sources required to write a neutral, verifiable, unoriginal research, comprehensive Wikipedia article. mike4ty4 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Maneos

Peter Maneos (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 propose deleting Peter Maneos as a non-notable vanity page. The creator has edited nothing else, except Pietros maneos, which is an alternative form of the name and now a redirect to this. The claims to notability (or as the creator calls it "notoriety", i. e. ill repute, but I don't think that was intended) are merely promotional and extremely overblown: "the famed Abercrombie and Fitch Quarterly" (my italics) "his poetry was compared to that of Pablo Neruda, Algernon Charles Swinburne, and Lord Byron" — no citation is given for these claimed comparisons to some of the most canonical poets in the Western canon. (Swinburne was added by an IP in 2010, to be fair.) Compare also this. Bishonen | talk 05:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I find this suggestion highly uninformed. I personally saw Mr. Maneos lecture at the esteemed Salmagundi Club on the nascent rise of Romantic Aestheticism in modern culture as well as to sign his most recently published novella, The Italian Pleasures of Gabriele Paterkallos. One need only go to Amazon.com and search for this work to see the bevy of reviews from literary critics, philosophers and general readers alike. Additionally, his work was compared to Algernon Charles Swinburne by Dr. John Paul Russo, a Harvard educated literary scholar, and the head of the University of Miami Graduate Program. I know this because I own his first collection of poems that was published in Rome and the review is on the book itself.

Best,

Lilli— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.161.28 (talk) 09:36, January 15, 2014‎

Lilli, may I ask if you're the same person as the page creator, Adonis123? Bishonen | talk 00:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, No, I am not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.119.161.28 (talk) 21:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then may I ask how you became aware of the two proposals for deletion of the article that you removed here and here? I posted alerts about the proposals on Adonis123's talkpage, but there has been no response from the account, only from you. Please don't take offense, but I kind of assumed that you were Adonis and had perhaps forgotten your password. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Everything I can find about the subject or his pseudonym is either self-generated, trivial or from unreliable sources. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG as a model (?), and his work as an author has not received sufficient coverage either. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sufficient independent coverage, non-notable. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete complete nonentity known only unto God.  Giano  21:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ladd

Yung Ladd (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)

Poorly sourced, promotional bio that makes claims that can not be verified. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. - MrX 04:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any sources to support notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Beckford

Dwayne Beckford (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)

Run of the mill, non-notable former college football player. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Yankees10 18:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While college athletes can be notable, it does not appear that this one is notable due to lack of coverage and therefore does not pass WP:GNG. Honorable Mention All-Conference is impressive, but not enough for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Tenuous claim of notability with nothing in the form of reliable and verifiable sources to support a potential claim as an athlete. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm no expert on the sport, but he doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria. Deb (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deb, WP:MILL. Lots and lots of players are NFL free agents. Subject to change, of course, if he goes pro and is drafted. Bearian (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Jackson

Kwame Jackson (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 appear any significance outside of The Apprentice and fails WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, pending any follow-up by the subject. Usually we only keep the winners of each season of each major reality show, although exceptions have been made. Bearian (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero | My Talk 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As the event is less than two years old, perhaps it's just WP:TOOSOON. --BDD (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bridge (AFL)

Battle of the Bridge (AFL) (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:NRIVALRY Only sources provided are AFL people trying to create a false rivalry Roboh11 (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per the refs in the article, significant coverage in reliable sources. Keep under WP:NEVENT too. The-Pope (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is the coverage of this "event" any greater than any other sporting event played in Australia every single year? Are you suggesting that the Swans vs Lions, Swans vs Tigers, Swans vs ... should also have individual pages on wikipedia? The fact that these games vs the Giants attract smaller crowds than the Swans season average attendance show that this is neither a rivalry or an event. Roboh11 (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has a name & significant coverage about the rivalry, those others don't. (and nice textbook example of WP: OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). And from the Giants POV, games vs Syd have an average home attendance almost 3 times than vs any other club. The-Pope (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has a name because the AFL invented the name. The media just repeated what the AFL called it. The only reason the attendances are higher for the Giants is because their average crowds are much smaller than that of the Swans. Also, can you clarify how this qualifies as WP:NEVENT. Does it have enduring historical significance? No. Does it have widespread (national or international) impact? No. Does it receive significant or in-depth coverage? No more than any other AFL game. Does it receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle? No more than any other AFL game. Roboh11 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of the teams participating in this event refuses to call it this. I'm not sure how you can say this is the name of the rivalry when it clearly isn'tCleary89 (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2014 (UTC) — Cleary89 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sydney have won all four of their premiership Derbies to date, and most (of not all) have been lopsided. MasterMind5991 (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: This subject fails WP:GNG. The rivalry is purely synthetic marketing guff by the Australian Football League. This is not a notable sporting event or rivalry, and this article existing is an example of WP:TOOSOON. One of the teams barely has any fans, the matches themselves are blowouts with no notable incidents occurring at all, I think the Swans half of the 'rivalry' actively deny it's a rivalry. All we are doing here is helping the AFL with it's marketing gimmicks. Even the name of the article was synthetically created and pushed by the AFL through the coach of one of the teams! Two teams in the same city don't automatically make it a rivalry. Out of the 11 citations, 9 are directly from the AFL or reporting of synthetic attempts by people involved with the clubs to give credibility to an otherwise fake rivalry. The other two are little more than "this fixture exists" citations that mean nothing. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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