< 7 September	9 September >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of most successful crowdfunding projects[edit]

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

This is a redundant list of successful crowdfunding projects. See Kickstarter#Top_projects_by_funds_raised. Furthermore, including projects that failed to make their goals, such as Ubuntu Edge, gives them undue weight. Having said that, it's clear that a significant amount of work went into the page, so I hope the debate will be fruitful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nowa (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kickstarter#Top_projects_by_funds_raised. The Ubuntu Edge was not successful, therefore it shouldn't be on the list. That leaves the top 17 as Kickstarter projects, making it an unnecessarily redundant list. Ansh6 6 6 05:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a content dispute, which shouldn't be settled at AfD. If there is consensus that unsuccessful projects should be removed, and all the projects not on Kickstarter are thereby removed, it would be reasonable to redirect. But until then, since this list includes projects not on Kickstarter, it doesn't make any sense to redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is the title: what does "most successful" mean? Is it the ones that got the most money, or the ones that succeeded? Seems like the latter. Ansh6 6 6 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider sorting list by both most money raised and market cap. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I think those projects who raised the most money deserve to be mentioned in the top, including those who failed their goals. Probably the list should be renamed to a more appropriate title like Top crowdfunding projects by the amount raised. The list at Kickstarter#Top_projects_by_funds_raised is good and has better columns, but there are also good top projects on Indiegogo. Maybe all the projects that raised more than $1,000,000 deserve to be in the list, but I stopped at $2 million (almost) because it was too much work to do for that. Another reason why this list should exist: since Star City (the most successful crowdfunded project) raised most of its money after it's Kickstarter campaign, it's not even included at Kickstarter#Top_projects_by_funds_raised. — Ark25 (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you double check the Star City link?--Nowa (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant Star Citizen. — Ark25 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but consider re-naming to remove wording "most successful", which is surely subjective and non-neutral? DaveApter (talk) 11:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as "most successful" is completely subjective. "Success" seems to be measured here in number of dollars raised, so the article should be retitled accordingly. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails general and company-specific notability guidelines. The arguments for keeping the article broadly relate to 1) the notability of cool roofing itself, not this particular company and 2) the need for public awareness of specific government spending, which is a nice idea but not a valid reason for retaining this particular encyclopedia entry. Euryalus (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Roofing Systems[edit]

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

I declined an A7/G11 deletion on this article as I thought that the awards listed might be a legitimate claim of importance, but after going through and removing the overly promotional claims and the non-RS, I don't think there's enough left to support this company's notability. There don't seem to be any independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject, and the "awards" are given by a company (itself not even notable enough for a WP article) to people who install its products, which hardly qualifies as an important enough award to meet WP:CORP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in US Gov Websites. The company figures in more than 40 US projects in California / West Coast. People have a right to know who taking Govt money. Although i think the award list may be removed, while keeping some other aspects like US Projects. --ThinkDone (talk) 02:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Government lists of contracts are primary sources, and generally not good sources for WP articles. They certainly do nothing to establish notability; they aren't independent coverage, so don't help for WP:GNG, and there is no special provision in any notability guideline saying that companies who do business with the government are automatically notable. And whether or not the people have a right to know, they don't have a right to publish that information on Wikipedia, which is a privately held website. You can't walk into the Los Angeles Times and demand they print a list of companies who do government business, and the same thing holds true for Wikipedia. Per WP:GNG, you'll need to find some independent reliable sources if you want the article kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete I was the person who nominated this for speedy deletion. As the "awards" were from a manufacturing company to a company that sells and installs its products, and were basically for good sales volume, I felt that they were of no significance. Hence I thoguht they didn't bring this over the A7 threshold. That it appears that the inital drafter of the article had significant conflict of interest made the promotional nature of this article more serious, in my view. As Qwyrxian says, gvt lists of government contracts are primary sources, and thus deprecated here for most purposes. Besides, they merely establish that this firm was contracted for certian jobs. Many firms hold government contracts, I don't see that as making the firm notable. These are at best "directory"-type listings, there is no significant, much less extensive, discussion in any independant Reliable source, nor could I find one via Google. If this is to be retained, there would need to be significant coverage in independnt reliable sources. Besides, even after cleanup this reads like a company website, far too promotional in my view. DES ^(talk) 16:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi I am associated with a US government energy conservation campaign and stumbled upon the deletion page. Here are my views:- I noticed that Wikipedia is very limited in Cool Roofing information. The previous head of Department of Energy in the US, Steven Chu, pushed for an cool roofing to change the world. I believe Wikipedia will be instrumental in making the knowledge available to the public, and consequently, helped the public to make the best decision on roofing. There is a page on Reflective Surfaces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflective_surfaces_(geoengineering)

However, the information on the page, while comprehensive, did not cover Steven Chu's cool roofing initiative and what it can do: http://energy.gov/articles/secretary-chu-announces-steps-implement-cool-roofs-doe-and-across-federal-government. And the effect of cool roofing is crucial for the world. http://energy.gov/articles/countries-commit-white-roofs-potentially-offsetting-emissions-over-300-power-plants Based on this article, the world will be in a much better position in Carbon emission if cool roofing can be achieved: "Global cooling - Permanently replacing the world’s roofs and pavements with highly reflective materials will have a cooling effect equivalent to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 44 billion tonnes of CO2, an amount roughly equal to one year of global man-made emissions. Assuming the world’s average car emits 4 tonnes of CO2 per year, these savings are roughly equivalent to taking all of the world’s approximately 1 billion cars off the road for 11 years."

The award from Duro-Last is a reflection of the company's achievement in promoting environmental friendly roofing structure. There are many manufacturers but Duro-last is the biggest PVC membrane manufacturer in the US and thus, worthy of mentioning, not because of its sale, but because of its representation that Cool Roofing Systems is an significant advocate installer, of a key product which helps on carbon emission. The reason that this company is noteworthy is that its status on cool roofing which reduces carbon emission and thus helps on global warming. Consumers would be very interested in knowing who the key players are in various green solutions for roofing. We as individuals should endeavor to promote all initiatives even commercial to conserve energy. And efforts of Cool Roofing are notable. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaliforniaSun2013 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While environmentally I agree with you, none of this is relevant to whether or not the article should be kept. When Wikipedia measures a company's notability, our primary question is whether or not the company has been discussed in detail in multiple independent reliable sources. If you know of such sources, please let us know about them, then we can add them to the article and possibly keep it, but without them, it doesn't meet our definitions of notability (see WP:CORP for more details). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. An article on the technique and its benefits and cost might well be appropriate. An article on the related government imitative might be appropriate (if there are sufficient independent reliable sources available). But those do not mean that this particular company is notable. By the way it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to "endeavor to promote" anything, no matter how great its benefits to society. Wikipedia is intended to describe what has already come to note in published sources. Readers can then judge its merits. DES ^(talk) 05:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insulation and passive cooling techniques are definitely worthy of coverage, but this particular firm doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete' I would not have declined the A7. There is certainly need for several articles on the relevant subject. There is no justification for having one on the company. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to One Direction per clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Gong show 16:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Memories[edit]

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

It is way WP:TOOSOON to have an article about an upcoming 1D album article that was only first announced a couple of days ago. A big amount of news sources came up in a google search, but they only announce the release details, and thats not enough. Since when did the amount users not understanding the meaning of a WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS start to increase? I'm hoping to god there won't be any retarded WP:ATA#CRYSTAL arguments in this discussion. 和DITOR E tails 22:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - no need to delete the article, since it will be released soon. After all, it's an album by an undoubtedly popular band. It's notable on it's own merit, but if it needs to be cleared for now, make it a redirect. RazorEye ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 22:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - album release is only two months away so more info will become available shortly. However, for now there is no where near enough to warrant an article. --Shadow (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Direction, for now, per WP:HAMMER and all the other guidelines and policies already mentioned :-) –anemone projectors– 17:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Direction per whatever. It's not notable now. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:ALBUM. Does have enough reliable sourcing to establish notability, nor does the album has an official tracklist, album cover, etc. Far too early for an article, only created likely due to over-excited fans. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I wouldn't be opposed to keeping it as a quick google search shows it would be possible for a well sourced background section to be written, but the rest of the article would be lacking. SayPeanuts (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rose (Company Director)[edit]

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

I suspect a conflict of interest here. I do not see in depth coverage of this gentleman's life; he has a company that has won various awards but the coverage is not of him. He's not in Who's Who or Debrett's. A biography of a living person. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article in nothing more than a wp:coatrack to promote the company Voipfone. The article creator has made few edits unrelated to Voipfone, and many of his edits to other articles are to promote the Voipfone. The creator obviously has intimate knowledge of this company e.g. by updating the number of employees by two.Martin451 (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the company is notable, but not its directors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ship commissioning. Move/rename proposals can occur at the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ship decommissioning[edit]

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

In this state not more than a dictionary entry so can be moved to the sister project Wiktionary. The Banner talk 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Ship commissioning, as that article should cover "both ends", as it were. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bushranger, and expand if at all possible on that page. Ansh6 6 6 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, but rename target to Ship commissioning and decommissioning. Neutrality^talk 20:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black Veil Brides fan fiction[edit]

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

Very little actual content right now, and even if expanded, I doubt this could pass WP:42, specifically the reliable-third-party-sources requirement. To the article's creator: This content may be more suited to a fansite wiki, like a wikia one. (Note that I have nothing against fan-fiction articles in principle—I saw a prominent site link to Kirk/Spock the other day, for instance—I just don't think this has the sourcing available to establish notability.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some background: Black Veil Brides is a popular rock band that charted 7 singles in the US and UK in 2011 and 2012, and this fanfiction is real person fiction about them. There is a dedicated website for Black Veil Bride fanfics, and it has a presence at other major fanfic sites like fanfiction.net, but as far as I can determine it has not yet been discussed in reliable, independent sources, and as such is not suitable for inclusion. Dcoetzee 21:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply, no. Terrible article, most popular bands have fanfic devoted to them (and mind you, ff.net technically outlaws RPF but their 'moderating team' seems to be made up of people who do anything but moderating outside of occasional sweeps to satisfy groups occasionally), no sources to be found. Nate • (chatter) 02:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There just isn't anything out there that would show that this particular type of fanfiction would merit its own article. It would take an awful, awful lot for a specific type of fanfiction to merit a mention in the article for the band, let alone for a separate one. It's the type of thing that's best suited for fansites and the like. If it ever gains mention in reliable sources we can add it to the main article, but not until that point. What would it need to get to that point? For a good example of how much attention it'd have to gather, I'd probably recommend that it get attention along the lines of the Harry Potter fandom fanfiction. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable sources. And no explanation of why this should be notable. Everything in the world has fan fiction written about it, seriously. This article is just fans being silly. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. DaveApter (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here suggests that this is a notable topic; it looks like it's just one of many examples of subjects for Real person fiction. The article is also poorly written, starting from its first sentence: "Black Veil Brides (or BVB) Fan Fiction is self-explanatory; a fiction of the band made by bands." I don't think that's what the writer meant to write. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2007[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ypnypn (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Hint: if an event is covered by the New York Times, chances are that insufficient sourcing is an editorial problem rather than a notability problem. Passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upgrading all three of these to Speedy since it is patently obvious that there was not the slightest effort to follow WP:BEFORE. Carrite (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A couple more quick refs that count to GNG to help get this over with fast: "Wikimedia's Wikimania gives Taipei City the nod," (Taipei Times). "In Taipei, Wikipedians Talk Wiki Fatigue, Wikiwars and Wiki Bucks" (NY Times). Carrite (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and all Wikimania-related articles; coverage is sufficient to establish notability. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - does meet WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 05:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2006[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ypnypn (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Once again, we have a piece of New York Times coverage showing. See: WP:POINT. Passes GNG; fixable through the normal editorial process. Carrite (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this violate WP:POINT? -- Ypnypn (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upgrading to Speedy. See WP:BEFORE. Headhunting multiple articles about Wikipedia conventions in rapid succession for deletion on Wikipedia without making the slightest effort to see if sources exist is disruptive. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Yes, the articles suck. Suckiness is not a reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They can be improved, but this is not the way. – SJ + 23:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does meet WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 05:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2005[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ypnypn (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - In addition to WP:POINT, please see WP:BEFORE. Very easily passes our General Nobility Guideline as being part of multiple substantial pieces of independently-published coverage. See, for example, "Wikimania Hits Frantfurt" (Deutsche Welle) and "Wikimania Sweeps Frankfurt" (Der Spiegel). Those two are from the first page of a simple Google search for "WIKIMANIA + FRANKFURT + GERMANY"... Carrite (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Upgrading all the above to Speedy, bad faith nominations, pretty clearly. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - does meet WP:GNG. Ansh6 6 6 05:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coverage in multiple independent third-party sources (albeit primarily in German) demonstrates that the topic passes WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lasse Fosgaard[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - fails WP:GNG (coverage is not "significant") and WP:NFOOTBALL (have not played in a fully-pro league). Giant Snowman 21:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete - Regarding Ryan Laursen, he has just been bought by a premier division team, so it's a matter of days/weeks, before he get's his debut. Lasse Fosgaard is also a full professional, as Lyngby is a professional sports team. He is pretty well known in Denmark. And if you want to delete him, there are thousands of other articles that can be deleted as well under the same set of rule set... Anyway, I'm done contributing, if this is the thanks I'm getting for my work... --- Dddmortenbbb

Delete both - Although Ryan Laursen was part of Lyngby when they were in a FPL, Transfermarkt indicates he never played for them and Lasse Fosgaard joined them after they were relegated, so has not played in a Full Professional League either. To Dddmortenbbb, the confusion you seem to be having is that it is not simply enough for a player to be employed by as a professional or even to be at a fully professional club. In order to pass the football notability guidelines, he needs to have played in a Fully Professional League, which neither of them have as it has not been shown that the Danish 1st division is fully professional (although it might have some professional clubs in it). Additionally, the notion that articles should be kept because the player will make their debut in a few weeks also is not valid as this is purely speculative and contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. You are quite right though, when Ryan Laursen makes his debut for Esbjerg then he has a case for an article, just not quite at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both I think Fenix down summed things up nicely.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - Yes, Fenix down summed up nicely how these two footballer fails the subject specific guideline, but I believe these two footballers passes the general notability guideline. A quick search gets sources like [1], [2] and [3], which should be sufficient in addition to the sources already presented in the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veria Natural Wellness[edit]

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

Dubious notability, very poor quality article. James^x1 2345 20:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious promotion, and I cannot find any non-promotional sources. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 23:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnotable spam. . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Predacon. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Predaking[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Redirect to Predacon is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable. DaveApter (talk) 12:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Predacon on account of redirects being cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G12 (blantant copyvio of official website) and WP:CSD#G11 (unambigious advertising). AngelOfSadness talk 20:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoof Armor[edit]

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

G11 Advertising, Relies completely on prime sources, possible COI Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 20:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. For future reference, you don't need to take an article to AfD if you think it meets a speedy-deletion criterion. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mujtaba Haider Zaidi[edit]

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

Sources are all self-generated. Web search for author and "published" book finds only promotional/user-generated pages and this article. The Lahore High Court's list of judges (http://lhc.gov.pk/?page_id=45) does not include Mr. Zaidi. Ejegg (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not evident. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited from famous family. A poet without a famous poem is not notable. Same with a playwright without a famous play. Research writing is usually not notable because it is away from the limelight, and this case is not an exception. Being a journalist is not notable by itself. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many entries on sites with user-submitted content, but no WP:RS evidence of attained notability in any of the fields listed in the article. (The subject's claim on one of the user-submitted-content sites to be " author of over 900 Ph. D dissertations" does indicate a certain industriousness though.) AllyD (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : A poet which is not known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Thai Airways#Incidents and accidents. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Airways Flight 679[edit]

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

Not notable incident. Runway overruns are very common....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions....William 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable minor incident. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the WP:CONSENSUS for this sort of incident to have a stand-alone article as defined in WP:AIRCRASH, nor does it meet the WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a news service, this sort of thing happens (perhaps distressingly) often and it will be forgotten in a week or two. Might, perhaps, be worth mentioning in the airport article if the story develops any legs, but this is nowhere near the notability for a stand-alone article, and is unlikely to become so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP- Yes this article deserves to be kept, it is in compliance with all wikipedia rules. This aircraft is a hull loss of an A330 a 200 million dollar jet, it just starting to hit news articles such as ABC Associated Press, and possible CNN. This is a notable event although no one died. And also under WP:AIRCRASH where it says under aircraft articles The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport, therefor saying it needs to have a proper wikipedia page since it was a hull loss. Also we should wait until it has been declared or not declared a hull loss, I mean really this page should stay up it is quite similar to Lion Air Flight 904, no one died in that incident.

Martinillo 03:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinillo (talk • contribs)

- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thai Airways#Incidents and accidents where it's mentioned in the greatest amount of detail needed already - I couldn't find any evidence of it being a hull loss as described above, and there's no "incidents" section on the airport article. Ansh6 6 6 05:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- This one is great don't remove it (Do do doggy (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I associate myself with Ansh's argument. No need to create a separate article. FonEengIneeR7 (talk) 06:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS policy, no demonstrated lasting effect. LGA _talk^edits 07:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable incident, I also agree with Ansh's argument. Why create another separate article? Kvisitstump (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... the story here is also the poor crisis management, and that is a good lesson for others..

Redirect to Thai Airways#Incidents and accidents which is the proper place for this minor incident and that already cover it. Cavarrone 06:08, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We don't know it with certainty yet, but unlikely a hull loss. Otherwise, articles are not written as a prediction of the future. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 15:32, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ansh666. The incident does not appear to meet the criteria of WP:AIRCRASH, but events like this are typically covered in the airline's article, as is the case here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:15, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an accident: material loss and peoples wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.251.162.8 (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - at BEST a small paragraph or sentence in the accidents section of the aircraft and/or airport page!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese people in Brunei[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic article. Not notable. No refs. GregJackP Boomer! 18:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is almost devoid of information and has no sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked through some books and scholarly articles to see if this topic was discussed at any length, but I really didn't see anything substantive in my searches. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could be an interesting article, but as it stands now, the "Vietnamese people in Brunei" article basically only says, "There are Vietnamese people in Brunei." Could be brought back or recreated later if someone found something worthwhile to mention on the topic. Ljpernic (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article doesn't contain any encyclopedic information, and I'm not sure the topic is notable anyway. T C N7JM 00:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Select-O-Hits[edit]

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

I fail to see how this passes WP:CORP; upon prodding it, I noticed that the account responsible for this is Selecto, which I reckon may have a conflict of interest. Laun chba ller 19:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can honestly say, with a straight face, that this is the only AfD I have ever participated in on my own. Gene93k and Courcelles, what do you think?--Laun chba ller 08:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be an article that was done by someone related to the label but the label itself is really quite important and dates back through Sun Records and Sam Phillips. It is a label that carries a lot of artists and ones important to Southern rock and Black American music. Maybe you need to suggest the article be revamped a little(?), there should be an article that pertains to the label though. Shelyric (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo creek[edit]

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

fails GNG, lack of RS. Would CSD but there is no CSD for buildings/construction projects [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Once again, good results with Google news. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify which of these are WP:RS please? lots of promotional/pr here. thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is some coverage in various sources. For example noted in Khaleej Times Online Jan 25, 2009 as project of an investment group. Might be a good merge candidate to a broader subject (such as the investment company/ developer)? Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Songdo First World[edit]

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

fails GNG per lack of RS [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Google News archive search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify which of these are WP:RS please? lots of promotional/pr here. thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll belatedly reply, in the hopes of moving this along: this article from London's Metro was the 4th link from the top. It's not hard to find, if one really wants to look. There's also a brief mention in a bylined story in the Upstart business journal, on page one of the news results, and on the web search side, there's this Archdaily item. Now, this next part is a little tricker but if one follws the interwiki link to the Korean wiki article on the international city, using your browser's translation function, one can find the Korean name for this tower complex and do a Google News archive search for that, which gives you these results. Clicking just on the very top results, This and this appear to be news articles from reliable sources, when viewed, once again, through your browser's translation function.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balochistan Rural Support Programme[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous AfD rescinded by nominator (me) because of putative RS provided (which do not hold up well) as a result of WP:CANVASSING violations by an editor now banned for WP:SOCK violations. (~~All~~ Most votes to keep on previous AfD were in fact editors canvassed by the sole author of this page.)

Insufficient RS to satisfy GNG. There are a couple vague references to the program in papers on economic development, but nothing that talks about the program itself directly or substantially. Sometimes these references are simply the inclusion of the "BRSP" acronym in the glossary. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 00:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a relief organization working in a part of the world where sourcing is very difficult (WP:INDAFD) thus what sources we have carry extra weight. I agree with the nom that WP:GNG is lacking here but we can use some PRIMARY for basic information about the org and the secondaries provide some information about activities they are involved in. They are mentioned in two .gov sources [4][5], passing mentions true, but noticed by the Dept. of State and US Embassy. They won an award which was officiated by the Prime Minister of India.[6] In the context of Pakistani NGO relief organizations they appear to be notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the third link is clearly a press release, and the article on the organization giving the awards (Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization) is barely more than a stub created by an SPA. the first two links seem like the sort of thing that one might cite WP:NOTINHERITED about. Like the economic development papers, they mention the name of the organization, and little or nothing else. I'm open to the idea that we might need to be a bit less strict than normal because of the nature of the area and availability of published materials, but i just don't see anything useful there. I wouldn't be opposed to userfying, but the creator/sole editor is indeffed for socking. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a simple factual announcement they won a prize, WP:PRIMARY is permissible unless there is good reason to doubt it. Further confirmation here[7] (pg. 19). Inheritance is not meant to blind us from looking at the specifics of each case, if the Prime Minister of a country is associated with the organization giving a prize, it is obviously more significant than if Aunt Beatrice gives a gold star, it weighs on the overall decision about notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The very first page of a Google News archive search displays significant coverage in relation to several separate incidents: a highly notable kidnapping and beheading of aid workers; a protest over alleged discrimination; as well as a broken link to a Dawn story about a call for more doctors. I invite nominator to click on the provided link and see for himself, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be an article about the kidnapping, but the kidnapping has garnered a great deal more press than the organization itself (which is not even that much, maybe two articles?). that also seems like WP:NOTINHERITED is relevant. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 20:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, inheritance is not meant to blind us from looking at all the facts of a case. Nobody is claiming this 1E is the only reason this organization is notable, it's part of the reason. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage in reliable independent sources to merit inclusion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Provides enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virgininfatuation (talk • contribs) 22:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:39, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remraam[edit]

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

fails GNG, lack of RS. Would be CSD'd but there is no CSD for buildings or construction projects. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In-depth RS, if not all positive, easily found and easily demonstrating passing WP:GNG.[8][9][10] Speedy deletion would've been inappropriate for this topic.--Oakshade (talk) 03:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very substantial development project in UAE. Needs updating. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bowmer & Kirkland[edit]

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

Lack of reliable, secondary sources that cover the subject in depth. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 12:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It may not be a good article, but that implies improvement, not deletion. This is not a small builder. With the amount of subcontracting in the building industry, a company with 1400 staff may well be giving work to many more people than that. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Like Peterkingiron said, this is not a small builder - circa $1 billion in revenue, 1400 employees. There's plenty of references indicating that they are the main contractor on some very large notable projects. The article could do with some expansion and improvement (removing some of the bits that could be considered as advertising). TubularWorld (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and historic firm. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Ron Paul#Personal life. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Paul[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTINHERIT. She is simply the wife of Ron & mother of the Paul children. The cookbooks are collections of recipes from friends & family and Carol Paul is not noted as a chef. She worked as a secretary for Ron & does not even like campaigning; thus hardly an "activist" (which was an earlier article description lacking RS). Article did go through a WP:BLAR, but another interest editor reverted. – S. Rich (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)14:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The "cookbook" is listed as a pamphlet by Amazon and was essentially a fundraising tool for the campaign. So I'm going to say she fails as an author and any other coverage of her appears to stem from simply being married to a notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. When faced with articles about notable individuals' nonnotable spouses, we routinely redirect the articles to the notable people; it wouldn't help to delete the title entirely. Nyttend (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added review sourcing. -- Green Cardamom
Strong Keep as WP:AUTHOR #3, subject of multiple reviews in reliable sources. This cookbook series has received in-depth coverage in multiple national sources including a feature length video and article in the WSJ among many other places. It was Carol Paul's idea for a cookbook[11] "(Back in 2007, Carol Paul told me it was her idea to send cookbooks to the Texas congressman’s constituents.)" This was her initiative, she is independently notable for it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per her cookbooks and substantial coverage of her familial connections to two major U.S. politicians. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:44, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by OP: User:Green Cardamom's article contribution is commendable. (In fact, I am amazed!) But the news stories are more of interest to the Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2012 article. With this in mind, Carol Paul has not made a notable contribution to the world of cooking or cookbooks. (And familial connection is not sufficient to overcome this fact.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She needs "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" per WP:AUTHOR #3. Notability of authors has nothing to do with how experienced they are on the topic they write about. It is based on how much press coverage their books get. Also, these books have been ongoing since the 1990s, as the sources describe, far beyond any single campaign. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep: Beyond being a notable author, she is a political activist and a LP symbol. WP:NOTINHERITED pertains more towards completely random people. As in, if we were to have an article on Carol Paul's cousin, simply because it is her cousin. It doesn't pertain to people who are generally associated with someone else, but still have notability on their own. PrairieKid (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The cookbooks appear to pass GNG. The author apparently does not, with not much outside of the simple proximity-to-a-political-candidate type coverage. Carrite (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of an artist is tied to the notability of their work, see WP:CREATIVE. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The news about her work is more related to the fact that it was used for campaign fundraising, not for the quality of the various recipes or as a notable cookbook. Delete. – S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cookbook serves a dual function as both a family cookbook and a fundraiser tool, they are not separate, it's its own genre and the sources cover both aspects, some more than others depending on the journalist's focus. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is not inherited. We wouldn't even be here if she weren't married to a minor cult celebrity. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Inherited is not meant to exclude cases like this. Inherited would be if she were simply the wife of someone famous and did nothing else, simply being someone. But she has done something. It doesn't matter what she did, so long as it gets attention. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Do we have articles here on every modestly successful cookbook editor? Even most of the coverage that she's got has been along the lines of "Ron Paul's wife has released a cookbook!", rather than concentrating on her and her books alone. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC).[reply]

So what? She has coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. You seem stuck on why she has coverage. Notability is not some deserving honor. People who write crappy self-published 16-page pamphlet "cookbooks" and are wives of loathsome politicians can be notable on Wikipedia, so long as they have coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier on I added the OCLC/WorldCat links for her cookbooks to the article. A single library stocks them. (E.g., Baylor University, Rand Paul's alma mater.) I do not think Carol Paul has reached the level of even modest success in the cookbook realm. If she hit a best sellers list, that would be a different matter. The Amazon.com "Best Sellers Rank" [12] for her 2009 book (ASIN B0034VR7QC) is #7,013,401. – S. Rich (talk)

Sales has no bearing on notability, there is no rule for that for many good reasons. Library holdings also has no bearing on notability, again for many good reasons. Notability, in this case, is defined by WP:AUTHOR #3 "multiple book reviews" and WP:GNG "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Rename to The Ron Paul Family Cookbook series, as that's really what this article is about. The article consists of a lede and one section. The section is about the cookbooks. The lede is four sentences, two of which are about the cookbooks. The only two sentences in the entire article not about the cookbooks are: "Carol Paul (née Carolyn Wells, born February 29, 1936) is an American author, who is the wife of former United States Congressman Ron Paul and the mother of United States Senator Rand Paul. She and her husband have been married since 1957." There is nothing in those sentences that is notable enough to base an article off of. Since this article is for all intents and purpose about the cookbooks, we should just call it that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egsan Bacon (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect, I can't find real notability here for reasons others have said above. Neutrality^talk 04:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Americans in Kenya[edit]

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

Non-encyclopedic article. Not notable. No refs. Declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 18:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is almost devoid of information, and the only source provided does not appear to contain any historical or demographic information about the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not fair, other articles have this same topic, but they don't get deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtedb (talk • contribs) 19:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you mean that other articles have this same topic, but that they have comparable topics. However, the fact that we have articles about Mexicans of American descent and Americans in Cuba, among others, doesn't mean that "Americans in any country" will make a suitable article. There need to be reliable sources that discuss the American popularion of the other country, to justify such an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in theory. Perhaps userfy? There are huge numbers of possible sources. I'm just thinking, off my head, about Barack Obama's Dreams from my Father as one source; his American stepmother is discussed extensively therein. There must be lots of sources online, too. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To begin with the article incorrectly defines the issue. Americans in Kenya would first and foremost be American citizens living in Kenya. If all we have as a good source to hang this on is Obama's father's 3rd wife and her movement to Kenya, than it is not enough. What we need is a reliable source that has studied the migration of people from the United States to Kenya in a long term way. I imagine there were probably a few Americans among the white "British" settlers of Kenya for example. The article as it exists is not worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Writers Group[edit]

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

Nonnotable now-defunct syndicate. While it had a handful of notable writers, it does not appear that the syndicate itself ever received any coverage. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This search shows some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC) This search is more useful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases don't count toward notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Editor & Publisher references may have been written using a press release as source material, but most of them seem to be legitimate journalist-written news articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 23:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's also some coverage here Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas A. Kellner[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, as there are no available sources about the subject. Plenty about the Bawdy House lawsuits, but not about him. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes my standards for lawyers: he's a statewide co-chair of the elections commission, an expert in his field, past county commissioner, and was involved in a well-known case. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva X[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mazinger Z through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of overly in-depth plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A redirect to the parent article is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero sources and dubious independent notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NormDis, normal probability distribution calculator[edit]

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

Wikipedia's notability guideline on Internet content and a related essay on the notability of software give a number of guidelines on when it is normally appropriate to have a standalone article for web software. Quoting from the former, ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even web content that editors personally believe are "important" or "famous" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. No web content is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of content it is. If the individual web content has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other web content of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists". This software does not have multiple non-trivial independent secondary sources describing it and hence ought not to have a standalone article. NW (Talk) 17:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As initiator of this article, all I can do is refer to Talk:NormDis, normal probability distribution calculator#Explanation and express my regret if it would be deleted. Asitgoes (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are we voting? My assessment/vote would be delete. Tayste (edits) 20:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still has no claim or evidence of notability. "You can find this software online for free" doesn't really cut it. There is nothing there to merge, as none of it comes from WP:RS. The only reference cited is of the calculation method used, and not to the software itself. Agricolae (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable because of a lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. List of statistical packages contains a lot of properly notable software covered in book-length depth by prestigious publishing houses. This software is simply not in the same league, and does not meet basic notability requirements. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Not finding sources sufficient for notability. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Jeffery (musician)[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO. I appreciate he's a member of a notable band, but that isn't our inclusion standard. Ironholds (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not individually notable and not worth keeping as a redirect with this title. Since people may be searching for the band I would suggest moving Keith Jeffery (historian) over the Keith Jeffery disambiguation page, since there would only be one 'Keith Jeffery' article, and adding a hatnote on the former article pointing to the band. --Michig (talk) 19:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I agree with Michig; a hatnote would seem applicable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; this person has not established notability independent from the notable band of which he is a member. Gong show 18:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO. it's quite laughable that the one source cited confirms he is a vegetarian. adds nothing to notability. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michig: not yet notable in his own right.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hanaharu Naruko[edit]

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

No evidence of significant notability. No significant references at all despite article being around since 2008. Only refs are a blog in Japanese and own web-site Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:39, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may be difficult to judge because the artist seems to be active in the hentai adult subgenre of manga, which is not subject to the usual coverage. Though it seems sites devoted to that treat this artist prominently: [13], [14]. I don't know these sites well, but it seems they claim that his book Shojo Material was a big hit: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. This claims that it was the number one selling book in the genre in 2008. I can't judge the reliability of these sites。But he has also drawn mass market manga, one of which, Kamichu, has both been translated into French ([20]). And he is involved in anime production, doing the character design for Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet: [21] (note that including his name in the title of the article in a mainstream news site may indicate some general notability). I couldn't find any interviews on the web, but some seem to exist ([22] and there were published comments: [23]. Again, it is hard to judge notability of marginal fields, but there seems to be good coverage for this field. Michitaro (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above discussion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found, please add them into the article so we don't have a repeat AfD. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources have been found. Dream Focus 21:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, notability is dependent upon sources being available, and not upon their not being used in an article. Cavarrone 05:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was being cautious given by unfamiliarity with the sites, but given others' confidence, I vote "keep". Michitaro (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#A7. Bbb23 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greekdagod[edit]

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

Page has been speedied before for lack of significance. Seems like recreation of a deleted page, but I'm wondering if an admin can review the page's contents and see whether it's any different. If it's to be kept, it needs a serious re-write and functional references. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 16:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A7). (Non admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Md. shariful islam[edit]

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

No references. Only two lines in the article and no claims for notability. Search does not turn up anything substantial to establish notability. Muhammad Ali Khalid (talk) 14:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I had previously flagged this CSD A7. The tag was removed by tha article creator, but has now been reinstated. Absolutely nothing here nidficates any form of biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals: Honduras Election 2013[edit]

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

Written in poor English, this is either a bad translation from Spanish or a composition by someone not fluent in English. It's a duplicate of Honduran general election, 2013, but as it has a lot that's not in the other article, it's not A10 speedy deleteable. The whole thing is unreferenced except to candidates' websites, not particularly understandable (I've read it, but I'm not sure if these are candidates' position statements, topics for ballot initiatives, government policies that are up for voters' review, or something else), and nothing that I noticed would be a good candidate for merging to the other article. Even the title's implausible, so there's no good reason to redirect it. Nyttend (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accurately !vote until I can understand the article; the broken English makes it too difficult. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 14:06, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the article is broken beyond repair? Michaelzeng7 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there was any useful content, it should be covered in the general election article. As there isn't, just delete. Number 5 7 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ConDor (convention)[edit]

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

Not notable. This appears to be a real annual event, but I could not find any independent coverage about it at all. MelanieN (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The name of the convention makes searching difficult-- it seems to go by the name "Con-Dor" as well. Probably the best source I can find like this public radio review, but the rest are just announcements or mentions like this "Top 5 Things to do" or like this book listing. This article from the San Diego Reader has substantial content, but it's a newsblog without editorial oversight. I'd be more willing to keep if there was another reliable source that provided significant coverage. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles C. Finn[edit]

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

no indication of WP:notability. Primary sources only given and google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 10:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding reliable 3rd party sources than attest to the notability of the subject or even what seems to be his key work: fails WP:AUTHOR. AllyD (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search of "please hear what i am not saying" finn shows a whole lot of mentions in books and websites. Appears to be a poem that is often cited. Maybe the article could be renamed to the poem and include a section on the author. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:notability. - DonCalo (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well established author and poet, who has several books written, all described in Google Books, and some of them are currently listed on Amazon. Seems worth of a WP article. The article itself, needs a lot of work. It reads like an essay. If it can't improved, I suggest we delete it and start again. Certainly passes WP:GNG scope_creep talk 17:08, 08 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment How? Where are the sources to establish that? Having books available on a book selling site does not do it. noq (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Green Cardamom whose approach to the topic seems sensible. Warden (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That one poem of his is surely notable. See how far its spread? [24] A print magazine once published it. Perhaps just an article for it. Not sure if any of his other works got coverage anywhere. Dream Focus 18:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm troubled by a lot of the !votes in this discussion. Arguments like "he's written a lot" or "his books are sold online" are pretty good examples of what does not show notability. Until there's any evidence of substantial independent coverage to pass the GNG, this doesn't really hold up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Looking deeper, I'm unfortunately going to have to !vote delete. Not only is there no independent substantial coverage of him in verifiable sources, but the only mentions at all of him are simply as the author of that poem. And I'm struggling so far to find any GNG passing sources for the poem either, while we're at it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, I'd have to oppose turning this into an article on the poem unless we can find any reliable sources discussing it (and no, anthologies of his poems don't work for that)--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve South[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotional, IP declined CSD.

GregJackP Boomer! 03:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Article seems promotional but when I searched for Twelve South, I was able to find some independent secondary sources for Twelve South's product HiRise. Some of them are:

Unable to decide whether this page should be deleted, kept or a page for HiRise should be created. SmackoVector (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the page is still being edited and more information and additional sources are being added this is reducing the promotional bias in the article. As the company creates products that reflect the design ethos of Apple this shows the importance of the subject and as such should not be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelbarber19 (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC) — Samuelbarber19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ARTSPAM, hardly any coverage in mainstream sources. - DonCalo (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough independent sources that aren't spam. Ultraviolet (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WASP-9[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a retracted planetary candidacy; it's non-notable otherwise. Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in its entry in List of unconfirmed extrasolar planets. --cyclopia ^speak! 12:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gainsborough Preceptory[edit]

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

There is no such thing as "Gainsborough Preceptory". Someone has obviously become confused. All Saints Church in Gainsborough was built by the Knights Templar^[1], and controlled by Willoughton Preceptory^[2], but it was never a preceptory itself. Rushton2010 (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I added a 'dubious' tag when it was described as a priory. The more I read the more I come to this point of view.−−−Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wondered if confused with Guilsborough Preceptory. List of monastic houses in Lincolnshire was full of this sort of thing. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's obviously got confused somewhere. All Saints Church in Gainsborough was built by the Templars, but it was a parish church, not a preceptory. Someone not familiar with monastic terms and monastic history could have easily been confused, or perhaps they presumed that because they built a church, they used it as a monastery?

As you say it could have also been confusion between names Gainsborough and Guilsborough. I would argue it is more likely to be my explanation, as Guilsborough was a "Camera" not a "Preceptory", and was used by the Knights Hospitallier, not the Knights Templar; Guilsborough Camera was reliant on Dingley Preceptory in Northamptonshire. For those not familiar with terms, a camera was "A residence used during short visits by an official and attendants of the Knights Hospitallers for administrative purposes on their estates", with a preceptory being a fully fledged monastery/priory.

The motives behind the confusion probably isn't relevant to AFD. However the confusion occurred, there was no Preceptory at Gainsborough. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not know the facts, but the explanation given is credible. Peterkingiron (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the purposes of notability, it doesn't really matter if it existed or not (some non-existent things being very notable). What matters is whether it has been covered in reliable sources or meets one of our other inclusion guidelines. Of course, actually existing helps when it comes to generating that coverage. In this case, I couldn't find any coverage and without it, this would appear to be original research without sufficient notability. Stalwart111 13:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is supposed to be based on "significant coverage"; but there's no coverage at all, because the thing doesn't and never has existed. As listed above, it is a page created after confusion. --Rushton2010 (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, then not much will save this. Thanks for the extra explanation. Stalwart111 23:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Merge argument doesn't seem to make sense. Shii (tock) 16:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Adventures Inc.[edit]

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

Not notable enough. Only primary sources are referenced. Knight rider best (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well established video game maker whose products have been covered in reliable independent sources. I would suggest merging the company's games into this article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:NOTINHERITED. In what reliable secondary sources has the company been the subject of significant coverage? Plus one of the games is in AfD and the other doesn't list any GNG sources either. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be misunderstanding the "not inherited" policy. This is an article on the company and its products. So if the products are notable that does in fact establish the notability of this subject since that's where the products are covered. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable independent in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems Star Quest I: In the 27th Century might be notable after all, I'd tentatively say Merge the company's article to their only notable product. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 23:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it make more sense to merge the video game article into the article on the parent company? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how. From the looks of it, the game is indepently notable. The company isn't. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But can't the game be covered adequately in the company's article? And doesn't this make more sense from an organizational standpoint? Would you have an article on an Apple product but no article on the parent company? That would be very strange indeed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organizationally it may make sense, however we have articles on notable topics; game is notable, company isn't. Thus, article about the game and not the company. See WP:NOTINHERITED above. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BSA Tower[edit]

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

fails GNG. lacks RS. (and no CSD for buildings/construction projects). [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 17:57, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Odin (Dark Horse Comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character. Ridernyc (talk) 02:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems unnecessary for Odin to have his own article if the same character doesn't appear in anything but the Son of the Mask. The movie article should be more than enough.Ljpernic (talk) 21:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This character isn't notable enough for his own article, and there's no obvious redirect target. T C N7JM 00:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The article doesn't even try to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 12:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Wein-Reis[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E in which the one event is entirely negative. brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A decade-long criminal career can hardly be classified as an "event" for the purpose of WP:BIO1E. Substantial coverage in reliable sources, spanning period 2008–13, should be more than enough for WP:CRIMINAL. Hqb (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where you got "decade" from and the WP:CRIMINAL you cite to supports deletion as this case does not satisfy the conditions set forth therein. Whatever. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says "for over a decade" right there in the first line of the "Fraud Conviction" section, and e.g. the Fortune article says, "For at least 15 years Wein Reis had made a fortune by allegedly gulling dozens of consumer product giants ... in exquisitely orchestrated scams.". Her arrest in 2008, conviction in 2011, and sentencing in 2013 were all considered noteworthy enough to generate substantial, in-depth coverage in reliable sources – which is what allowed a properly sourced WP article on her to be written in the first place. Hqb (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It is difficult to consider the 15 years of fraud mentioned by the Fortune article Hqb has cited as a singular event. Additionally, the paragraph from said article beginning with "But what she is accused of doing was fabulously brazen; she had the temerity to sting some of the world's biggest corporations -- not just once, but again and again." suggests that the crimes meet WP:CRIMINAL's guideline that their execution be unusual and noteworthy. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wang-Ching Liu[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Awards are vanity awards pay-to-win. Unable to find independent book reviews in reliable sources. NAN-PAT-VIC PUBLISHING is the authors own publishing company self published. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete two of the awards appear to be fairly legitimate, but she was only a finalist for one. Not seeing any evidence that she or her books have been covered in reliable independent sources.Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious which of the awards look legitimate. You may be right, when I looked they all seemed to have the classic vanity characteristics. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation the "awards" appear to be paid marketing. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Euryalus (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tupy[edit]

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

Too few movie credits to merit an article. The New York Times "reference" is actually just a blank mirror of his AllRovi page. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE, or WP:ENT at this time. Gong show 19:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (Non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 11:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canine Companions for Independence[edit]

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

Not notable - there are no secondary independent reliable sources Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CCI is the US first and oldest program for service dogs, today a world-wide industry, CCI along with its founder pioneered and invented the idea of service dogs in the USA (aka assistance dog) and possibly the world (not including for the blind but for wheelchair). Highly notable and important organization.[25] Lots of sources in Google Books. (see WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, research further before nominating to AfD). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of WP:NGO meets #1 national in scope and #2 information about its activities can be found in multiple reliable sources, do a search on Google Books there are tons. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News Archive shows dozens of newspaper articles from major publications across the United States over many years where this organization is the primary topic, not just mentioned in passing. Clearly notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martial arts (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The disambiguation page is superfluous. At best it is circular in that no one would search for it and it is only pointed to by the Martial arts article. When it was originally created a band called Martial arts was included so I suppose it made sense but that article has long been removed. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It wasn't a proper dab page even when it had a band. Neither of the two remaining entries qualifies. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even disambiguating anything. These are just related topics. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not a real disambiguation page.Mdtemp (talk) 15:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wideberg[edit]

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

Not notable. He played college baseball through 2008 and never played professionally. Sources do not establish WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The trail runs cold on Wideberg shortly after his South Carolina career. He took a job as a pitching coach somewhere, likely a Florida high school, but that's not enough to satisfy any notability guidelines for now. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 15:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outdated article about someone who doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH or WP:BASE/N or WP:GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Avellan[edit]

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

On notability grounds. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a second nomination as part of a larger bundle and it was unclear whether it should be kept or deleted. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edvin Hebovija. The article of his brother was just deleted after AfD and this article is effectively a duplicate with respect to style and notability. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcos Avellan.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's appeared at the ADCC world championships 4 times and won at least one match each time, including a 3rd place finish in 2009. I believe that's enough to meet WP:MANOTE and show notability as a submission grappler. Papaursa (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Papaursa about him meeting WP:MANOTE (for his grappling, not his MMA).Mdtemp (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Despite the current state of the article, on a quick search i've found significant coverage in MMAmania.com and GracieMag.com. In my opinion, it meets the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. Poison Whiskey 23:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He clearly meets the criteria for WP: MANOTE Divest1987 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Flor[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy criteria for WP:PROF and violates WP:SOAP NoyPiOka (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong Keep - But article needs to be rewritten to reflect actual significance: On the basis of the first criteria for notability of academics:"The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Flor's contributions to the field of Development Communication, particularly of the Los Banos school, certainly make him notable, although I'm afraid the article doesn't seem to make this particularly clear. I submit that just his redefining of Development Communication from the cybernetics POV launched what (at least at the time) was a new investigative thrust for the field. His attempt to clarify the role of development Communication in comparison to the Four Theories of the Press as expressed by Siebert was also a significant conribution to the pracitce, if not the theory of the field. As far as I can tell, scholar would be remiss if he or she did an overview of literature on the application of Knowledge Management and the Decision Sciences to Development Communication in the Southeast Asian context without at least acknowledging his inputs. - Alternativity (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article looks like it was written by the subject himself. For example, it keeps using the term, he is "credited" but without any documentation as to who credited him other than himself in his own, non-peer reviewed works. I vote to promptly DELETE it for the following reasons: 1) Searched and found no evidence of notability that would pass WP:GNG; 2) No secondary sources are presented or available to keep this article; and 3) He has not been published in any top-tier (Thomson Reuters/ISI) peer-reviewed journal/forum in his field.Kwantog (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At some universities vice chancellor is the top administrative position but in his case it appears that the university president fits that role and that vice chancellor is a lower level position, not enough to meet WP:PROF#C6. And his citation record is not enough for #C1. What else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This piece should be deleted immediately. It should not have been allowed in Wikipedia in the very first place. It is purely a self-gratification piece. Just browse the Internet (Yahoo, Google, MSN, etc.). You will not find a single scholar or authority in his field reviewing this person's work. All you find in the Internet are listings of his so-called books, which are really nothing but gray literature (not peer-reviewed, not ranked, no clear contribution to the information technology or communication fields other than what he claims in Wikipedia). His WP article (especially before its revision last week) was obviously focused on names-dropping than anything else. WE NEED TO TAKE OUT THIS ARTICLE ASAP.Jkallo (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a student of the University of the Philippines (albeit of UP Manila rather than UP Open University), it pains for me to say that he is not notable. He may be a vice-chancellor, but that is not an inherently notable position by itself. He has also not been the subject of enough reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I vote to delete this WP article. The key problems with this article are that it miserably fails to satisfy the clearly-stated criteria for WP:PROF and it also clearly violates WP:SOAP, while serving as a self-promotion tool for this person. It seems that the only one voting to keep it is the creator of the article (Alternativity) for obvious reasons. However, his defense of this article is something that is based on pure opinion and cannot be validated, or hearsay evidence as they call it in court. Simply put, this Alexander Flor (the subject of the article) appears to be engaged only in mediocre scholarship by seeking to use Wikipedia as his platform for self-advertisement.Jessicakeltos (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Alexander Flor likes to bloat and fake his credentials, which is one more reason to delete his Wikipedia entry, besides not having any recognized piece of scholarship. Just take a look at the Edit History for his WP entry, especially in August to early September 2013. For example, he tried to conceal the fact that he did not earn any degree from any university outside of the Philippines, his native country, by stating that he did a "post-doctoral tour" (which does not mean anything) at the University of Southern California and University of Hawaii. He erased it, when one of the editors clarified in the text that he did not complete any post-doctoral program or fellowship at these two universities. He also tried to make it appear that he was an elected fellow of scientific organizations by indicating in WP that he was a "member of the New York Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science." He deleted these entries again when someone pointed out that he was just a fee-paying member, not an elected fellow or these scientific societies. Then, in the same lead paragraph in WP, he claimed to have "collaborated" with some experts in the communications field but he deleted this when one of the editors pointed out that his alleged "collaboration" did not produce any tangible result such as a scholarly research or published output. All these only show that this Alexander Flor fails all counts of the notability criteria for a scholar or professional in the development communication field. Waov12 (talk) 19:51, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skyboom Shield[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Transformers: Armada through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of WP:NOT#PLOTplot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I can't find any sources for this. Probably belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki to Wikia, though I can't imagine them not having an article on it already. Ansh6 6 6 05:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reclosing to fix template error, previously closed by User:Buffbills7701. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pixar Universe[edit]

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

This article is original research which has seized on a particular journalistic shorthand and misinterpreted it to mean something entirely different. The concept of a "shared universe" described in this article isn't actually supported by the sources. Most of them are using the term "Pixar universe" to describe Pixar's body of work in general, not to refer to the particular concept described in this article's lede. Even those that do posit some sort of shared universe are either unreliable blogs, and/or do not describe the subject in sufficient detail to meet our coverage requirements for notability.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory. Psychonaut (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article author. There is no doubt at all that the term "Pixar Universe" HAS been used in and by numerous sources since at least 2003. If it is felt that repeating that which is stated in reliable independent sources elsewhere becomes original research here, or that the article draws improper conclusions through how it is written and presented, then THOSE are issues best addressed through regular editing, and not through deletion. Thanks for waiting a full 23 minutes before nomming. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, please let me explain why further editing cannot bring this article into compliance with our policies. I had a quick look for sources before nominating the article, and at your request for further collaboration I did a more thorough search this afternoon. Apart from discussion of the blog post which is the subject of The Pixar Theory, I didn't turn up anything reliable which uses the term "Pixar universe" in the sense used in this article. The sources you are currently using do not support this interpretation, and so should be removed from the article. This leaves the basic premise of the article entirely unsupported by reliable sources; the lede would have to be removed as unsourced, along with virtually all the material not connected to The Pixar Theory. That would leave this article as effectively a duplicate of The Pixar Theory, and should be deleted as such. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nominating something that was created to address concerns in a concurrent AFD really is a bit pointy. It seems fairly obvious that while the concept might be notable (having received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources), the content of the article is a work-in-progress (that progress being an ongoing discussion elsewhere as to what should be included in this article). Nominating it 23 minutes after creation is just silly. The author has spent days pre-empting its creation by drawing attention to his user-space draft during which time you could easily have raised concerns. In fact, he raised it with you on your talk page and you didn't respond. Stalwart111 10:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And creating an article on what is essentially the same topic as that of another article currently undergoing a deletion discussion isn't pointy? Please let's discuss this nomination on its merits (i.e., the WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:N concerns, and the possibility that the phrase as used in most of the sources has been misinterpreted) rather than casting aspersions on the page creator's or AfD nominator's motivations. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the creation wasn't pointy - it was the express result of multiple collegial discussions with other editors and a wider discussion in that AFD where a new article was suggested by multiple editors. It was created as a good-faith attempt to resolve an identified problem. To be frank, I have no clue as to your motivation - I really don't get this AFD at all. Stalwart111 11:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) NOT intended at all to be pointy, even if the nom "felt" it was. In that other discussion, there were issues raised that the concept of a "Pixar Universe" preceded Jon Negroni's 2013 "theory thesis" by nearly a decade, and I had asked his opinion on his talk page (and others) and posted a request for input at that AFD before going live with an article that, rather than concentrating only on a recent thesis as did the other article, attempted to broaden the scope for our readers so as to address a wider issue. The nom is certainly allowed to nominate anything you wish within these pages, and not casting aspersions... I suppose a speedy AFD was his "answer" to my earlier request for input. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not arguing that the article creation was pointy. I was trying to demonstrate that tarring this nomination with the WP:POINT brush is just as easy, and just as wrong, as tarring the article. You'll notice the conspicuous absence of any reference to WP:POINT in my nomination—which, incidentially, anyone who still doesn't understand the motivation for really should read. The issue is the apparent misinterpretation of the sources, and their lack of coverage, not the authors of this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per above: clearly meets WP:GNG, and it's obviously a work in progress, having just been started yesterday in response to the other AfD and moved to mainspace an hour ago. Ansh6 6 6 10:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm going to WP:AGF and assume the nomination was misguided, not pointy; but this article was AfDed 23 minutes after creation, and the topic appears to pass WP:N/WP:GNG. Psychonaut's failure to discuss the merits of this article, despite being given several chances to do so, is concerning. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "several chances" did I pass over in the 23 minutes of this article's existence? I was not involved in the drafting of it, and in fact by the time I was made aware of the draft's existence it had already been moved out of userspace. (See further details on my user talk page.) You can bet that, had I received notice of the draft while it was still under construction, I would have raised exactly the same concerns then, and strongly advised the author(s) not to publish it. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The referred to "chances" may have been my earlier request on your talk page (and others) and at that AFD itself. Your earlier opinion there seemed to conclude that per WP:N we need wider coverage of the topic, rather than an article based upon a "fluff story" which had gone viral. Others responded to my request for input, even if you did not. So I acted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nom's analysis seems correct: The use of the expression "Pixar universe" in the cited sources unrelated to "The Pixar Theory" (and source 2 doesn't even contain the word universe) does not support the concept of a "Pixar Universe" set forth in the article's lead. The only sources related to the concept of a shared universe are the ones connected with Negroni's Huffington Post article, which is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Pixar Theory. The creation of this article seems to be an attempt to obfuscate that deletion discussion without offering any relevant additional material. Deor (talk) 11:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good eyes, and thanks for catching that. I had so many windows opened on my PC's desktop, I used the wrong one. THIS is the Slashfilm citaton I intended... and will now fix. My appreciations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 12:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: a comment I recently posted to the nom's talk page included "I think the second article's AFD could/should result in either a better article per work based upon Talk:The Pixar Universe#Expand and improve or a merge into Pixar... either of which result improves the project as comments at the earlier AFD pointed the way. As for issues with the second article, and as I think we agree the concept of something called "The Pixar Universe" has been spoken of in media since at least 2003, WP:IMPERFECT and WP:WIP seem applicable. Lets fix over time and through regular editing, rather than toss. A second point is that I we had no section AT Pixar where I felt it could fit. Suggestions for how/where to merge it would be most appreciated." Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 14:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say that "the concept of something called 'The Pixar Universe' has been spoken of in media since at least 2003", but there's no evidence that the instances of the expression "the Pixar universe" (note the non-capitalization) you've turned up have anything to do with "a 'shared universe' in which every character that is created by Pixar exists", as the lead of the article states, or even that any sort of coherent concept underlies the individual uses of the expression. One might refer to "the MGM universe" or "the quasi-medievalism of William Morris's fictional universe" to allude to certain characteristics that all MGM films or all of Morris romances have in common, but certainly not implying that they are all set in a shared world. As it stands, this article is nothing but a duplicate of The Pixar Theory with irrelevant and misleading "references" added. Deor (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's interesting reads here and in ABC-CLIO's "Disney, Pixar, and the Hidden Messages of Children's Films" (ISBN 0313376727) and in this master's thesis all of which predate Negroni's posting of his own Pixar theory (resulting in an article title here which itself suffers from improper capitalization... but there like here it is an addressable quibble that is not a major issue) and yes, there is more coverage resulting from Negroni's bringing attention to the concept and calling it a "theory". Yes the article needs work, and since you have waxed, so shall I. Articles covering shared universes exist here, ie: DC Universe, and indeed some such shared universes have been explored in some detail. ie: Star Trek, Marvel Universe, Marvel Cinematic Universe, Marvel Universe Online, Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game, and Marvel Universe (toyline), Forgotten Realms,Babylon 5, Foundation series,Dragonlance, Rangers, Man-Kzin Wars, Cthulhu Mythos, The Sims, Zork, and the 1632 series, to name but a few... and of course the many articles about various ORPGs that share a similar universe and logical consistency. And now that Pixar/Disney has released a gaming system (see Disney Infinity) where players can create and play many diverse Pixar and Disney characters in the same game, it is difficult to think that Wikipedia has no place for an article discussing the "universe" created by Pixar (and now including Disney)... however it is framed or where-ever it might be merged. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems like a valid article topic, all that other stuff "notable", "encyclopedic", blah blah. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 15:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think notability is plainly established by sourcing, and it skirts being original research (perhaps barely). I caution anyone commenting on this against confusing this article with The Pixar Theory, which is a far more specific sub-topic of this overarching topic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no "Pixar Universe" as per Pixar itself. Not every idea from a viral blog post deserves an article. Gamaliel (talk) 01:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename and refocus to Pixar worldview. Here are two serious sources that discuss the overall worldview of Pixar films: http://www.equip.org/articles/the-wisdom-of-pixar/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/05/14/the-hidden-message-in-pixars-films/ This is a notable topic regardless of any Pixar shared universe. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent compromise that allows further expansion along the same lines as the marketing strategy behind the Hidden Mickey. I concur. Renaming and adjusting focus makes sense.Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 16:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kitfoxxe and WP:GNG. Critical commentary about the worlds created by a single author or company are common (see Styles and themes of Hayao Miyazaki, Roles of mothers in Disney media, All pages with titles beginning with Themes in). The article needs not be about a the idea of shared univere only; there are enough sources for a viable topic expanding on all reviews about themes found in Pixar works. The exact nature of the coverage included in the topic is open to editorial discretion, that should be dealt with at the article's talk page. Diego (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Themes in Pixar films might be better, since that already seems to be an established form here on WP. I only found one source that said "Pixar's worldview" or something like that. The others talked about Pixar films supporting the Christian worldview. The word "worldview", or as our article says "world view", is often used by Christian "culture warriors."Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys want an article with a different title that deals with a different topic. How, exactly, is that an argument for the preservation of this article about this topic? Deor (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps intended under WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, and we'd have a WP:MOVE to a modified title and a rewriting of the lede to change the intended focus to encourage expansion. Perhaps. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with The Pixar Theory merged in, and give the interested editors a chance to add in more relevant information (such as examples of the "internal references", like Mike Wazowski from Monsters Inc. snorkeling through the credits of Finding Nemo. Not every article has to be about something serious. Neutron (talk) 23:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I voted to merge The Pixar Theory here, and I think together they just about make a passable article. As a side note, should this article be moved from The Pixar Universe to just Pixar Universe? — Richard BB 07:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a move to Kitfoxxe's Themes in Pixar films or perhaps a move to Themes in the Pixar universe (lower-case "u" until sources use upper case) would be sensible in encouraging the article to become broader in scope. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. At best some of the trivia might be salvaged and placed in the main Pixar article or in The Pixar Theory. Artw (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

OR??? Trivia??? We have Pixar themes spoken of in multiple available sources such as Entertainment Weeky Forbes Green Pages and then we have official WP:NEWSBLOGs such as this and books.[26][27][28] You may feel such coverage and analysis is "trivial", but an expanded article with a changed focus would be far from "OR". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, please stop moving the goalposts. This debate is about whether to keep this article, not some putative article on a much broader topic. —Psychonaut (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... and not intending to be a nudge, but my "goalposts", including my agreeing that the project is served by this article being renamed and refocused, are "moved" by WP:EG, WP:ATD and WP:HANDLE. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ironic isn't it? Someone wants the "main" article to be The Pixar Theory, when this article was created because the people at that AfD wanted this one to be the "main" article. Ansh6 6 6 19:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though I do not like disagreeing with Deor. It seems to me that this particular theory has received enough coverage to warrant an article. (Also, I think that the Theory article should be merged into this one, but soit.) Drmies (talk) 00:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:OR refers to material which is not verifiable and no published sources exist. Everything seems in the article seems to covered by reliable sources and it seems to be a notable topic.... Although I also support a merge.LM2000 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite a bit of RS for this topic. However, I support the notion that a rename should be done. Beerest355 Talk 13:21, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is quite a bit of RS available. Definitely not OR. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Unsourced. Shii (tock) 16:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persian keyboard[edit]

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

All the cited sources are primary and the notability is not properly asserted. An article about the actual Persian keyboard that is used by people who type Persian would certainly be notable. The deletion proposal is for the current content, which is about a particular non-notable layout. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched Google Images for a Persian Keyboard and found only one type - not the one described in the article. -- Gabi S. (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should Keep the topic, delete the existing text, and make it a Stub for the real Persian Keyboard. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if any notable varieties can be found (like Gabi, I didn't see this stuff, but there are others) - see Category:Input methods for examples in other scripts. Otherwise, delete. Ansh6 6 6 19:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flexsin[edit]

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

Unable to find any secondary sources covering this company, fails WP:CORP. Valenciano (talk) 08:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found nothing that could meet WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Pal[edit]

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

Made-up game invented by the article's creator. I think we'd better get the shovel for the Pal. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an improvisational play/show of a single theater troupe; no references or evidence of notability. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find where this is a particularly notable improv skit/show/game. If the troupe had an article that established notability then we could redirect there, but it doesn't seem to exist and I didn't really find anything that showed that this troupe was notable enough to merit making one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tokyogirl. GregJackP Boomer! 23:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integration Technologies Group[edit]

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

Delete, appears to fail WP:CORP notability. All the sources that seem to be available are PR websites or newsites. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It was in the news this week, here, from the Pentagon, but it was a passing mention. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its a pretty scrappy article, primary claim to fame is it's a prime contractor to parts the US Army and US IRS, but prime contractor here means being able to bid on contracts. There are not first in line. There is much bigger companies like EDS and IBM. References are all self referential or point to news letter types. It has been around for a fair while though, since 1984, which confers some notability. scope_creep talk 19:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't depend on age, but on sources. Can you please point us to two acceptable sources? —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This one-sided article is just an ad for ITG, which appears to be a non-notable "provider" of IT "solutions". ISTM that the article was probably created by an ITG employee. It read like a news release at the time it was created. User:Shawn in Montreal has improved it somewhat, but it still reads like a news release. Most of the Google News hits for ITG are press releases. If someone finds two acceptable sources later, then they can ask the closing admin to undelete it. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's an ad for the company. Established companies don't post ad article on Wikipedia for advert purposes, and expect to gain business. They are well established, known by their customers and suppliers, and the government, stuck in their firmament. But, I think it is useful to have a WP article for people who are looking for some useful surface information about the company, perhaps for recruitment. The fact it's not readily findable by Google also doesn't mean it's not notable. Such contractor generally don't have a large public facing component, since they are usually dealing with the military or US government. So I think if it has a chance to be improved, it should be kept. scope_creep talk 00:20, 03 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it simply does not appear to be notable.. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Merry[edit]

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

Proposed for deletion but that deletion was contested on the talk page. The PROD gave the following concerns: "Non-notable tennis couch lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. References are brief quotes listing of the name in associated with students. Appears to fail WP:BIO." Mackensen (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A search of Google News Archive finds lots of mentions, and what may be more in depth coverage, in Reliable Sources. I can't read most of them because they are behind paywalls so I can't be sure. He appears to have been marginal as a player but possibly notable as a coach. --MelanieN (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found passing mentions in articles about students and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG IMO. Also, seems to run into WP:NOTINHERITED, but GNG is the biggest issue. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 01:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative press (U.S. political right)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is somewhat of a procedural nomination. It only makes sense to also nominate this article for deletion, because the Alternative press (U.S. political left) has been nominated, and the same rationale applies to this article in entirety as well. It would be unbalanced to discuss one article without this very similar article also being discussed; both have very similar content and formatting. I'm nominating this article for deletion per a very similar rationale in the nomination for the Alternative press (U.S. political left) article (which was devised by User:GiantSnowman). There is change in the prose here, so it's not quoted, but the nomination is virtually identical:

This article is an indiscriminate list which simply seems to advertise/promote the media of a certain political ideology. The list is not supported by reliable sources, and neither is the inclusion/definition of many of the entries as either "alternative" or even "political right" - seems to be original research in that respect. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also, the deletion discussion for the very similar article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternative press (U.S. political left). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Northamerica1000:, surely it would have been better to wait for the outcome of the 'left wing' AFD to gauge community consensus? Giant Snowman 08:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that it would be more functional and egalitarian for both articles to be discussed simultaneously. Otherwise, the U.S. political right article would essentially be receiving preferential treatment, allowed a "free pass" while qualifying for deletion in the exact same manner as the "political left" article. Also, the deletion rationale above applies equally to both articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per rationale at the related "political left" AFD. Giant Snowman 08:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Better done through categories. Sourcing a list like this will be a problem (who labels them "alternative"?) , as will indiscriminate list. Rather should be "Top alternative papers" by some criteria like circulation number, or if it meets a threshold of being labeled alternative by at least 4 reliable sources, something such as that. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have less of a problem with this one than I do with Alternative press (U.S. political left) since it makes no attempt to include the thousands of right publications from the past. Current publications, blue links, makes for a manageable size and useful navigational function. I do agree with Green C. above that the primary problem is a inability of defining "alternative." The secondary problem is definition of what constitutes "right." Is this insurmountable or just an editing matter? Of that I'm not sure... Carrite (talk) 15:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unmanageable list with unclear criteria that will likely be disruptively edit-warred over if someone with a strong POV gets their hands on it. Ansh6 6 6 19:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Castaldo[edit]

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

He wasn't notable before the Columbine High School massacre and he has not done anything notable after it. Delete, or redirect, per WP:BLP1E. (I set up a PROD that an IP removed, in case you're wondering why I didn't just boldly redirect it.) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Columbine High School massacre. I encourage scope_creep to redact the violations of WP:BLP in the intemperate comment above. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed entry which was for another article. scope_creep talk 00:24, 01 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. Biographical subject was one of the victims in a shooting. Has not been substantially covered in reliable independent sources in any other regard and should have privacy respected. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Should not have made it through BLP PROD ES &L 19:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BizBroker24[edit]

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

advertising, fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 13:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. -SFK2 (talk) 14:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Brand new company which has no credible sources. Also as aside; formatting on the site is terrible. They pump these sites out quicker than you can shake a stick, and page layout and formatting quality is woeful. Should have done gotten a website usability report done on it made, and actually make it work, as intended. scope_creep talk 19:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I worked hard on this article after it was initially nominated for deletion. I studied several other broker articles and tried to make it more effective and look less like an advertisement. The most interesting thing about this company is that they are strictly focused on brokering online entities websites and apps. I could not find another broker company on Wikipedia dedicated to this niche. I think it is fairly easy to delete an article and that is very counter productive. Aren't we supposed to work to make Wikipedia a more informative place?--Cube b3 (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but only for companies whose have already established themselves, are widely known and have a long history and/or done something really spectacular (positive or negative). A form with just a bit more than 4k Google hits fails "widely known". The Banner talk 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I respectfully disagree that the company isn't widely known. I have posted several references from very well recognized websites. These same websites have been used to reference countless pages on this platform.

Also I Browsed the article on Broker, it is safe to say it isn't even on Wikipedia standard. None of the Broker related articles are. So it is fair to say the subject of brokers and the companies involved in this venture aren't covered extensively on Wiki. We need to bring awareness to that and work to improve them all rather than just start deleting.

BizBroker24 focuses on a niche. I am quoting myself at this point, "The most interesting thing about this company is that they are strictly focused on brokering online entities websites and apps. That has merit. The page also provides information on how online content is brokered and what are the variables that BizBroker24 factor in before buying and selling a website.

I have worked tirelessly on that article and I urge you to help me bring it on the quality standards that we hold so highly. I am maxed out I worked on it to the best of my ability. Deleting it would just discourage people from making articles on that subject again. I believe I am reiterating myself again as I made the same case for UK2 Group.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is why you picked that company (and because you mentioned it) and UK2 Group? In this case a simple Google search would have made clear that you have a notability issue. For sure, I appreciate your efforts but you are a bit unfortunate at picking your subjects. The Banner talk 12:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC) I recently had to shoot down my own sandbox-article, as I was not convinced of its notability after writing it [reply]

That would be a good question had I made the page. I actually came across it after it was flagged. I have been on this magnificent platform for almost a decade now and you are welcomed to browse through my contributions. You will find that I am prominently attracted to the business side of IT firms and video games but occasionally I do wind up editing other things.

What about you? What attracts you to write articles? Should we move this discussion to either of our talk page? P.S. I answered the UK2 group related question on it's deletion page :)--Cube b3 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Hey guys, my apologize. I did not want to create any kind of war / conflict on the wonderful Wikipedia platform. I own many online business and I did not have an idea about the worth of my online business sites and domain name. One day I came across the bizbroker24 site and after I contacted them my site was sold in just 5 weeks for a very good price (6 figures). For this reason I thought it can be really helpful for the world community to know more about these kind of "exit strategy" and service for internet marketer.I shared information that I thought I would help people in working with brokers to sell or buy an online entity. I would love to share my whole experience but I have signed a NDA (non Disclosement agreement) with the buyer so I cannot disclose website, sale price, etc. If someone is interested in my experience, please contact me in private.Thank you for the attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by Euve19644 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of some of the more recognizable sources that have had any coverage on them: http://www.bizbroker24.com/press/--Cube b3 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and ask the creator to re-review WP:NCORP with a more critical eye ES &L 19:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Chang[edit]

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

Neither being a local councillor nor putting himself forward as a candidate for state office makes him notable (see WP:POLITICIAN), nor is there evidence of satisfying the general notability guidelines. References include non-independent sources such as http://stanleychang.com/, a page which merely includes his name in a list of candidates, brief reports doing little more than announce his candidacy, parochial coverage such as a mention of his candidacy in a school newspaper, an announcement that his membership of the bar association has been suspended because of non-payment of dues, and a couple of pages that don't even mention him. None of this could remotely be considered to be substantial coverage in third-party sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article was created by a single purpose account, all of whose editing has been concerned with adding Stanley Chang's name to articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does not qualify for an article under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG at this time. For now, Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii, 2014, where he is already mentioned. That's the usual practice for candidates for office. This preserves the article history for possible expansion into a standalone article if he should win the seat or otherwise become more notable. Could also be redirected to Honolulu City Council but I think the congressional election is a better bet. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii, 2014, which is our established practice in such cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venus A[edit]

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

This article is entirely in-universe, and it lacks any sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have copied the full history to the manga wiki at http://manga.wikia.com/wiki/Venus_A Dream Focus 19:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Belongs on Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sourcing and dubious notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highline international school muruthagahamula[edit]

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

Non-notable school. No hits appear on Google and only mention I can see is a Facebook page. buff bills 7701 18:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I can't find any reliable sources on this school at all. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources found covering this school whatsoever. Fails the GNG easily. T C N7JM 01:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closed as KEEP by request of nominator after significant improvement - discussion.consensus was that way after repairs anyway (non-admin closure) ES &L 19:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UK2 Group[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 20:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I am at a loss as to why so many valuable articles are being deleted. Yes, they probably require a lot more information to be added in order to comply with Wiki standards but Deleting is subtracting information.

Are we going to delete every article on this list next? Template:WebManTools--Cube b3 (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just think about how our actions will effect other contributors. They will stop contributing here. In many foreign language wiki's people with an IT background have stopped contributing because their contributions would get deleted. The administration needs to help people write better articles, not delete their work because the articles should have been written better.--Cube b3 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the tranclusion to a link. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have briefly attempted to clean up the promotional text on the page. I believe the refs I removed were entirely spam, but someone attempting to ascertain notability may want to review this old revision. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Only hits I get for them is being bought by a more notable entity. ~~Article was probably created by an SEO professional or company employee.~~ NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take that as a compliment, as I made that article. I assure you I am not an SEO.

Where are you from? UK2 group has been advertising very aggressively and all their brands adverts can be seen on Facebook, Youtube and huge advertising platforms. I made this article to provide information on the company. I obviously didn't do a great job at it but I was optimistic that somebody more informed and better at writing IT pages would contribute to it.--Cube b3 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made this page cause I was a customer of GoDaddy and had a negative experience with them. I started looking for alternatives and came across UK2 Group and their brands. Once I discovered them they seemed unavoidable as they were advertising everywhere. I did not see a Wiki page for them or their brands hence I decided to create them. That is how I operate on this platform.--Cube b3 (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my lack of good faith; I shouldn't have made that statement, and I have struck it. However, a good marketing department does not establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apology Accepted :D. I am not trying to be contentious but I can not resist the urge to attack Go Daddy one more time.

Only reason GoDaddy has such an expansive page is cause they are surrounded by a host of controversies. They are also known for their gratuitous commercials featuring Danica Patrick with a puzzled look on her face. As mentioned I am a burned customer. Okay, Done.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all the brands and acquired companies into one article. It looks like people have tried this in the past and then they get split up again? For example 100TB was a redirect, article, and then redirect. One coherent narrative covering the founder, the parent company, and all its "brands" and acquisitions might have a better change of being notable. Would need to be balanced and in plain English of course, but a single article would make the easier too. Merge would be more work than a simple delete, but I suspect bad ones will spring back up again if just deleted. Take a look for example at http://search.theregister.co.uk/?q=uk2 which shows there was some outages back in 2002, 2006, 2009 , and 2012 that made some news, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was discussing that and I did merge the brands back into UK2 group. Somebody deleted all the info. Now I am not sure how we go about finding the story. --Cube b3 (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks like a bunch or articles were changed to redirects, but the content (and sources!) was not always merged. And the article kept the misleading wikilinks to the redirects back to it. This is going to take some time to clean up. (And we just got an edit conflict, sigh). W Nowicki (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I spent a couple days digging out in the info from some of the articles that either redirect to it, or are proposed to redirect. It could of course stand even more work, but I think I made some progress on the rescue. Some of the companies that were bought out over the years had some quite fascinating history of their own, although that was often not mentioned in their articles either. Often my somewhat serious criterion for notability is if there is at least one scandal or other questionable incident reported on the subject. There are still a few press releases for citations left, but I thought it would be better to admit it instead of trying to pass off some web re-posting sites as independent. There should be enough references from independent press including some major ones like The Guardian etc. Please take another look. W Nowicki (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not an advert, but a history of a modest, but growing, company. If Lloyds Bank paid over £40M for a majority stake, the whole may be worht £80M. That is no minnow. However, we only need one article to cover the company and its brands. If there are several they should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be true, that article you have seen is significant changed] since my nomination. The Banner talk 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST SPEEDY CLOSE AS KEEP, AS NOMINATOR. Due to a massive effort of W Nowicki the article is almost completely rewritten and changed in a proper overview article of a company. The Banner talk 22:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article looks to be WP:GA quality, already! — Cirt (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No indication of persistent, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Two !votes from quacking sockpuppets discounted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that, after concerns on my talk page, the article was recreated and speedily nominated for deletion here so that a clearer consensus could be determined). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kadmon (character)[edit]

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

Completing nomination for an IP editor, who posted the below rationale at WT:AFD. On the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is related to a minor Italian television character (from the program "Mistero" / Italia1 http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistero_(programma_televisivo) ). I think that the wiki page was created only for self-promotional purpose to create a "background" to the character by producers of the show. The page have no international encyclopedic relevance so I think it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.229.51.18 (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

thanks Ultraexactzz The same page was deleted on italian wiki for the same reason: http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon_(character) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.229.51.18 (talk) 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article in its current form is highly promotional in tone and hard to understand. However, there is coverage of the subject: "How Adam Kadmon Made the Leap From The Kabbalah to Italian Television", The Forward, April 21, 2013; a mention in a 2013 New York Times article [29]; and a bunch of stuff in Italian that shows up in GNews [30], in addition to the few currently included in the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: We have another article (not well sourced) called Le teorie di Adam Kadmon. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Referencing is not perfect, but pretty good. In my opinion the references need to be enhanced especially in the Character biography part, where refs should be put inline where needed, and not all at the end. The text would need to be formatted better. It doesn't look beautiful. But the fact that does not look beautiful or that the references are there, but not right in place, does not mean that the article should not be there. This character is well notable and contains enough secondary and tertiary independed sources that confirm it. I also agree that the article needs to be more neutralized and enhanced with regards to the grammar and syntax. Thanks. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 11:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article edited and now surely meets WP:WAF and WP:GNG and WP:BIO, however it still needs to be edited by WP:COPYEDITORS. It's already in the waiting list. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 20:54, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the biography is still written in "in character universe", remember that we talk about a fictional character not a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.229.51.18 (talk • contribs)

First of all he is not a fictional character. He is an anonymous character. Second, as far as a fictional character meets the WP:GNG and in particular WP:BIO and is considered notable, it can have an page in Wiki as well as other ((Category:Lists of fictional characters|fictional characters (click here)) to whom the Wikipedia Community dedicated a whole project WP:WikiProject_Fictional_characters. Once again Adam Kadmon is an anonymous writer, not fictional. Please note the difference between a real person which is Anonymous and a fictional character. Third you had to write below the orange line. And when you write, please always put a signature and always mention facts, and avoid WP:OR. Thanks--★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 12:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 23:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see two problem, the character is fictional ( see discussion on Italian wiki http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Adam_Kadmon )is a team of authors who shows the ideas through the character, second it has a little relevance on Italian television scene, i don't think that this page on English wiki was relevant. the Italian page http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Kadmon_(personaggio_televisivo) is enough.2.225.149.59 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. First - whether the character is fictional or TV character it is decided by the article itself, its content and the sources, not by other authors from other wikis. Second. Whether it has or not relevance on Italian TV is decided by WP:GNG and in particular WP:BIO, not by Original Researc WP:OR, so please keep a WP:POV. When you say "the Italian page is enough" and when you use arguments like "in other wiki..." you are writing in complete disagreement with WP:OTHERLANGS. Other wikis and personal opinions should NOT be taken into consideration in AfD discussions. Third - the Italia AfD discussion was closed and the Article about Adam Kadmon was restored as "personaggio_televisivo" (eng. TV character), not fictional. So what you stated above is false. Thanks. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 21:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is full of self reference to character blog , page from the television channel who host the character (mistero,tgcom24,mediaset,italia1)and promotional article for books. many assertions are totally nonsense: " Adam Kadmon is the main character and source of information regarding the Conspiracy and the NWO in the Italian National TV." Nope he talk in one tv program (mistero) in one national channel (italia1) "igh-skilled in martial arts and t'ai chi ch'uan, Adam Kadmon is said to possess the ethics of a superhero such as not harming innocents and the tenacity of a soldier of Special Forces." self promotional reference / in-character universe biography 2.225.149.59 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that there are blogs as sources this is ok as long as they are confirmed with other primari/secondary or maybe tertiary sources. All the information that had sources only coming from blogs has been removed from the article. Now all the info that is in the article has primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Before commenting on the source type, please read the rules. The fact that he appears only in 1 channel this is wrong and false. If you read the article you can see that he appears on TV, in the shops his DVDs are being sold, there are magazines in book stores about him or having articles about him, he was for many years a speaker in the biggest radio in Italy. So please say the true here, as no original research is permitted. In any case, there should be some sentence that are unbiased, the article would have to be tagged as CAT:PROMO so that a knowledgeable editor will edit it and make it fully unbiased according to WP:NPOV. If we were to remove all the articles that contain some "promotional tone" text, according to your opinion we would have to remove ~18.000 articles - all are listed here CAT:PROMO. Please be reasonable. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 07:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only a note about "DVD, magazine and book", are all from the same group of tv channel, Fininvest: Piemme is a subsidiary of Modadori (Mediaset Group), DVD and the Magazine was released by Fivestore a merchandising group hold by Mediaset. On Radio105 the character was play by the Italian dubber Christian Iansante. 2.225.149.59 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is decided by other criteria, not from who is the person, who is dubbing the person, etc. For this reason please read WP:GNG and WP:BIO. --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 07:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After going through the text and references I can see it meets the Notability Guidelines for living people. It definitely should be kept. After this discussion closes I suggest to add a note for language & grammar copyediting. --84.221.143.251 (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I too after going through the text and references this article meets the Notability Guidelines for living people. It definitely should be kept 109.55.226.170 (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Sylar[reply]
Delete This article is a horrible mis-mash of fiction and reality. We should clearly indicate if an article is about a real person or a fictional one. It is not real clear what this article is. However the subject is not notable enough to merit an article either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. Before contributing in AfD, please read the article and understand what you are talking about. Please understand the difference between a real person that writes text and appears in TV with an actors'voice and image, and a Character_(arts) - the difference is huge and important to know. Second, in AfD discussion sentences like the subject is not notable enough must be avoided (read WP:Not notable) according to the rules! Regards --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 10:10, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward thinking this subject is marginally notable and some sort of article may be appropriate, but I agree with John Pack Lambert that the current version of the article is extremely confusing and does not adequately define the subject. If we do keep the article, I would suggest cutting it drastically. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions. I would go for a Copy Edit template. So far the article is now awaiting a copyeditor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 14:27, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly strong delete Pikks fails to understand that notability for articles on en.wiki is extremely more sifficult than on others. The sockpuppet !votes above sealed the deal for me. If I was logged into my admin account right now, I would have closed this as delete and salt myself ES &L 19:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply read the WP:GNG and WP:BIO. These are the rules that must be met for living people. Please read the rules. If you think that some rule is not met, please specify. But please, let's try to avoid personal opinions. You may like the character, you may not, you may agree with the character theories or not. But what makes an article notable or not are the Guidelines for biographies of living people. Regards --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 19:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read them correctly. My comment above is based on my knowledge of said policies as an admin and longstanding editor. ES &L 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what you wrote, you do not know the rules. Please read the AfD rule. Here is a quote The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.. You still didn't give any arguments. You just said to delete it. And delete is not an argument (wikilinked so you can read what an argument is). --★ Pikks ★ ^MsG 07:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Sasso[edit]

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

No reliable sources talk about this "person", who may or may not even be a real person. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting trivia for fans of German metal, but it asserts no notability and could very well be a hoax. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this passing mention in a metal encyclopedia was the best coverage I could find; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 16:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't even verify if this is a real person. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pop Girl. Consensus is to return to a redirect to Pop Girl as noted by nom and others (non-admin closure) ES &L 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Party[edit]

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

Unsourced, vague stub. Was previously a redirect to Pop Girl, which is probably a better choice than deletion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted, it is like deleting Pop Girl. HoshiNoKaabii2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoshiNoKaabii2000 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pop Girl without prejudice to being converted back to a full article -- This was once a substantial article, but its content was largely copied from Pop Girl, which is what that article was in fact about. It therefore seems to have been cut back to the present stub. If I understand correctly Pop Party is also a list of music. If the list is set out in the article, and is something that is not already in "Pop Girl", I would change my vote. I think that would meet HoshiNoKaabii2000's concerns. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

maybe he could show what was in each thingy so it doesnt get deleted Unorginal4 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Quite apart from the fact it has charted (although it's up to more experienced users to tell if this is a notable enough chart or not), I've found a strong overall sales position. There aren't many reviews online though, but I need to note something: there are two separate Pop Party products; the compilation album, and the TV show. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Masahito Hatakeyama[edit]

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

Non-notable person, not mentioned outside fan sites. The only source currently provided is actually a Wikipedia article published in book form, so this article is effectively an unsourced BLP as it stands. --DAJF (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 06:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't even find the kanji of this person. Repeated searches find only these two Hatakeyamas associated with Nintendo: 畠山巧 ([31]) and 畑山陽亮 ([32]), neither of whom is Masahito, and neither of whom have any RS beyond the Nintendo site. Michitaro (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found this source. Assuming it's the right Hatakeyama because the source was found in the WarioWare D.I.Y. article where Masahito Hatakeyama is mentioned. But not a RS anyway. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Japanese version of that source. The Hatakeyama there is 畠山巧, a name which cannot be read Masahito. It's not the right one. Michitaro (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The promotional nature of the original article has been tempered, and independent sourcing has been added. Accordingly, the keep position is better supported by the end state of this article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:49, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda (olive oil)[edit]

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

Purely promotional article. Most of the refs are mere mentions or inclusions in a general article. The others are based on PR. The award is not notable, or reliable as an indication of merit. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Speiron for an AfD already in process the equally promotional article on the equally non-notable company. Personally, I consider this G11 territory ,but there was an opinion in the other AfD that the product article was justified, so it needs a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, Salt, and Scorch the Earth Where It Once Stood This was something of a saga, but I was loath to nominate this myself after my recent record on AfD nominations. I've done some work on this trying to pare down things to just the bare facts of marginal-notability. It was created by a SPA, and the only editors who have done any appreciable work on it, other than myself, are SPAs. They have been aggressive in removing ((advert)) tags. The creator of the page, somehow, was able to get their hands on high resolution copies of the promotional photos seen (lower-resolution) in some of the linked articles, and tagged them as "own work" but when questioned, elided any relationship with the company (which led to their deletion as copyvios on commons). Although I get the sense that we're really not supposed to delete articles punitively in response to promotion even when unambiguous, i cannot help but derive a bit of schadenfreude from this nomination, especially since someone else did it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, though, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources about topics and the depth of coverage in those sources. You seem very determined to advocate deletion of the article, but discussion regarding sources that cover the topic, the depth of coverage, etc. is often how deletion discussions are ultimately determined. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak keep thus far~~ - Here's a bylined article from Packaging Digest: Olive oil revisited. Here's a paragraph from a Los Angeles Times article at Hit 'buy,' and let the prosciutto and coffee beans fly. Here's content from a paywalled Time magazine article at Groceries — for More!, quote from Google News summary: "The Lambda olive oil from Greece, retailing at $182 for 1000 mL, came packaged in more gift-box euphoria than anything Tiffany could imagine. The company ...". Some coverage in reliable sources about this topic are out there, and the depth of coverage in this Time article needs to be examined. Also, here's some marginal coverage in a Packaging News bylined article: Fancy oils’ slick new direction. It seems to be very likely that Greek-language reliable sources that cover this topic could be found, if anyone wants to spend the time doing so. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've addended my !vote above to keep, per the additional source provided below by User:Shawn in Montreal. I had a feeling that more coverage would be available in Greek-language sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ARTSPAM. - DonCalo (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article is not promotional at this time, though. It actually reads very neutrally. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this point, it's rather hard to see what all the fuss is about: the article is neutrally worded stub, sufficiently referenced, as of today. It's a notable enough brand with just enough in the way of WP:RS, and the merits of the award don't figure into it, at this point, I'd say. Although I'm not at all familiar with this olive oil infobox and some of the info reads like original research, but that is a matter for normal editing, not deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, a Greek Google search yields a bunch more WP:RS: here's an interview with the founder (keep in mind the brand name means "L" in Greek: http://www.tovima.gr/socialevents/article/?aid=371873 Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original Editor's Note: I created the lambda olive oil page because I tried it, I found it really good and well marketed compared to other Greek olive oil products. I have become a fan of lambda since then. If you follow to its web page you can see that it is now sold in the UK, the US, the UAE, Singapore, Romania and in Greece as well as on-line. The press is still quite active about lambda and there are references in magazines and newspapers in Greece and other countries (source: http://www.speironcompany.com/Text/lambdapress.html). Tassosl (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are quite a good number of WP:RS there, it seems. However, given what I understand to have been problems with spam and possibly WP:COI in this article, it would be much better to ad such references from publications directly and not via pop ups on the www.speironcompany.com promotional page. You understand what I mean? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

slight correction: spam, COI, and socking (for which this user's block just recently expired). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 18:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current pared-down version is much more accurate and cites several independent sources that can verify the basic facts as well as general notability. I do think it could be even more neutral -- for instance, several sources clearly state this is very expensive for olive oil, perhaps ridiculously so for a product that isn't really even artisanal in nature. In any case, it's been cleaned up a lot and is no longer pure fluff. Steven Walling • talk 01:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's interesting. That'll be a good acid test for who is a spammer or not. Now, I've added one ref about the split with Krista. I personally didn't feel that Olive Oil Times was making an encyclopedically notable comment about price: luxury products always have high mark ups and packaging costs. But the split with Krista was notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I added a bit more about the history from what seems to be a WP:RS online Greek American dietician's food site. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As if you needed support for the promotional nature of this article, the creator (which i will again note has been banned for promotion-related socking at this article), Tassosl has attempted to both remove some of the supplier disagreement content as well as insert additional promotional stuff (here). -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 06:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, you remain confused at these Afd discussions about what constitutes notability. That only proves -- as I thought it would -- that this editor should be blocked. Not that the sufficient WP:RS indicating notability are to be discounted, and not that the spammy state the article used to be in before clean up makes it forever tainted. Block the editor, protect the page if necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've issued a talk page warning -- this is what one should do when one sees promotional edits, along with reverting those edits. It does little good to complain about editors' actions at Afd if one doesn't also apply warnings. Now, I've also raised this matter at WP:AIV asking if we can dispense with additional warnings and block now as a promotional account: this has gone on long enough, surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the cited sources are pages on promotional websites, and the others only briefly mention "Lambda", the best being a fairly long article which devotes one short paragraph to "Lambda". There is no reasonable way of regarding this as substantial coverage in independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the spam editor had, for some reason, removed a Greek-language RS that I had taken the trouble to find and add, perhaps because in some way it had displeased his employer? Which I won't take the trouble to replace. Screw it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.... aaaaand now he's been blocked. Period. best, 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've gone and restored the Greek WP:RS. I can't fathom why the blocked editor wanted it gone, but it does provide WP:V. Be curious to see if he socks again and tries to delete it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source you restored may or may not be a reliable one, but it is about Giorgos Koliopoulos, the owner of the company that produces Lambda olive oil, and it is written in the first person, which does not give the impression that it is an independent source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, my third attempt at a reply: It was published by Greek daily To Vima, and you'll see at the bottom it was reprinted from the Greek men's mag BHMAMEN, bylined as by Marilena Astrapellou, "Issue 57, pp. 60-61, December 2010." In fact, I will revise the ref if the article kept to reflect the original publication date and author. It was some form of Q&A. But I suppose its first person account does make it a WP:PRIMARY source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 06:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Coins[edit]

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

This is a very nice essay but it is completely redundant to both coin and numismatics (and the broader series of articles on the history of coins in various contexts). Suggest the author contribute to those articles rather than trying to get his original research published on WP. Stalwart111 06:23, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And on closer inspection, the essay seems to have been written to drive web traffic to (wait for it...) www.classicalcoins.com, an online coin shop (and most links go to specific pages where you can buy the coins in question) run by someone with the same name as the original author who talks about creating the page on his blog. That's not what Wikipedia is for, sorry. I have removed those links so we can deal with the article on its merits. Stalwart111 06:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:FORK. Recommend author read WP:COI before considering additional contributions to Wikipedia on this topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am sure that WP will have adequate articles covering all the coins discussed. This is a mere essay, followed by a long bibliography, which is not linked to the text as in-line citations. I would recommend that the author should investigate what we already have in WP and seek to improve that from what appears to be his extensive library on the subject (and without inserting links to his website). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:COI: take your pick. Agricolae (talk) 02:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I tagged it under CSD G12, which the author circumvented by adding a CC-BY-SA-3.0 to www.classicalcoins.com, cf. Talk:Classical Coins. Sam Sailor ^Sing 15:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing new here, and a scattered approach.--DThomsen8 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Women Poets International[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking ghits and Gnews of substance. Article is supported by press releases. Appears to fail WP:ORG. reddogsix (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've been talking to the editor that created the pages and they said that there was a bit of a translation error, as some of them are regular newspaper articles. So far there is some coverage out there and I'm kind of leaning towards merging the article for the group and the poetry event together. I think that combined they might pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage is small, but it's there and over enough of a time period to where I think that it just barely squeaks by notability guidelines. I recommend that the article for the poetry festival redirect to this article, as there's just enough notability for an article for one about both but not two separate ones. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it received some decent coverage in reliable sources. Cavarrone 06:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Betancourt[edit]

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

Article Needs to be moved to the Spanish Wikipedia Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 02:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete - I agree with the above. I may take it upon myslef to do an article on the subject in the future, but in English. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, in fact, because this is NOT a deletion reason at all. What you should've done is tagged it with "Template:Not English". I've used Google translate to very roughly translate the article, added a reference, and then we're left with a clearly notable player; he represented his country at the 1975 Pan American Games. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read WP:BEFORE, and check the edit history; this shows how the article started out; in English. Not only that, you nominated it for deletion THREE minutes after User:Elviin08 added in the first of the Spanish things. Utterly poor form. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly poor form!? I was reviewing various Wikipedia articles when I came upon this one, and saw that the entire thing was in Spainish. Why not just move it on over, and create an English version? Besides, Google Translate is not a very good translator, and it would be better for an expert to do it. Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 14:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article not being in English is not a reason for deletion; otherwise, the template I showed you wouldn't exist. If I had happened across this article, instead of AfDing it three minutes after the content had been dumped in, I'd have checked the history, run a translate, and notified the editor who inserted the foreign language content that this was enwiki. If you look, that's exactly what I've done since. If I had more time, I could easily rework this, but I'm doing other things. See Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, which, in fairness, I was unaware of as well, but a quick search found. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - no rationale for deletion (and it's in English now anyways). Ansh6 6 6 19:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I changed my vote. As stated above, the article is now in English. I helped a little in some copyediting and the format. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY KEEP - No rationale for deletion...the article is in ENGLISH! Nelsondenis248 (talk) 09:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Integration Management[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG Sourov0000 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 04:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 02:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pond5[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Reason was "While notability is asserted it is not verified" Fiddle Faddle 12:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the sources don't discuss it in great detail, there appear to be a fair number of reliable sources mentioning it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that this is redundant to a superior article at Iranian Azerbaijanis. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian in Republic of Azerbaijan[edit]

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

Article is completely redundant to Iranian Azerbaijanis. It was created by a new user, Eight for Eight, and redirected for all the right reasons by White King, Writ Keeper's alter ego. See User talk:Writ Keeper/Archives/9#Iranian in Azerbaijan for a bit of detail. Eight for Eight reverted with the grammatically and rhetorically insufficient edit summary "(is Diapora all of the diapora article". I restored the redirect, to find my actions undone, without any explanation, by Serzhik. Let's settle this. If the other name is better (ahem--note the grammar and the subsequent name change, which made it even worse since the "notables" mostly precede the founding of the republic) a move discussion should be started. This duplication and the attendant improperly explained edit warring is disruptive, and the very poorly written duplicate should be deleted. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I see now that Serzhik has left an explanation (of sorts) on Talk:Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan, which is as grammatically challenged as the comments left elsewhere by Eight for Eight. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the problem may be that the newer article is written in relatively poor English that makes its subject difficult to understand. Iranian Azerbaijanis, the target of my redirect, is about people of Azerbaijani descent who currently live in Iran. The title of the new article and Serzhik's explanations seem to imply that the new article is about the inverse; that is, people of Iranian descent who currently live in Azerbaijan. But the text of the article is ambiguous at best: "...citizens of Iranian nationality and Iranian citizens abroad are Azerbaijani citizens and permanent residents of mainly ethnic Azerbaijani background..." sounds like it's referring to people of Azerbaijani descent who were citizens of Iran at one point and then left Iran, which sounds much closer to the topic of Iranian Azerbaijanis than the purported subject of Iranian in Republic of Azerbaijan. Indeed, the text of the article has a population figure that is labeled with a link to Iranian Azerbaijanis! So, if my and Drmies's original assumption is true, then this article should be deleted as a duplicate of Iranian Azerbaijanis. If it is incorrect, then the article should at least be moved to Azerbaijani Iranians or something analogous with a proviso that extensive reworking is required, if not deleted anyway (without prejudice towards rewriting/recreation, and with the standard allowances for userfying, etc.) for general incoherence. I'm sorry, but it's difficult, if not impossible, to parse even the topic of the article from its text, much less any useful information. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Drmies: Iranian Azerbaijanis and Azeris in Iran isnot Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan. i say in this talk page.

Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijanis Is different.

Iranians in Republic of Azerbaijan means persians, Azeris and other Ethnic minorities in Iran, now living in Republic of Azerbaijan example diaspora and are Ethnic groups in Azerbaijan
Iranian Azerbaijanis means Azeris native in Iran and Ethnic groups in Iran.

be short in this article isnot Reason to remove. plz see short article for the turkish and Armenians daispora Turks in Spain, Armenians in Bahrain--Serzhik (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already exists in a much more detailed and much more adequately alternative title, and isn't a likely search term (stats.grok has it at "Iranian_in_Republic_of_Azerbaijan has been viewed 42 times in the last 30 days." of which 32 were on the day of nomination for deletion). Technical 13 (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I tried (and am trying) to fix the grammar in the article. This does seem to be the only article about this subject (the redirect, as explained above, is about the opposite... thing). PrairieKid (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates an existing article, and this is definitely not a valid redirect; the title doesn't even make sense (at the very least, it should say "Iranians in Azerbaijan") and Serzhik's argument, which is bordering on incomprehensible, doesn't seem to address the fact it is a duplication. And if it is supposed to be talking about Azerbaijani Iranians, then WP:TNT this mess and write a proper article there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a better article--this isn;t even a useful search term for a redirect, 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - duplicates an existing article. Kabirat (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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