The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response to Star Trek[edit]

Critical response to Star Trek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redundant content fork, whose content is already included in articles for each film or TV series. Similar to the recently deleted articles for Harry Potter films, Chronicles of Narnia films, Adaminte Makan Abu, etc. –Dream out loud (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reasons as the others: as the nom states, they are redundant content forks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete for the following reasons: The aggregated information included is much easier for users to find in this article than searching the individual article for each movie. Redundancy is moot. CyberTychoBrahe (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete and comment. From briefly cross-referencing some of the sections in the article with the corresponding main pages of the films, etc, the article does look like a needless content fork, although in an ideal world it would be nice if any additional information in this article not in the other articles could be transferred over before the big delete. -Well-rested^Talk 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundancy should be avoided. People looking for criticism of a specific aspect of the franchise will look for it in the respective article.  Sandstein  12:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang (Pleasure Island)[edit]

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

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

Notability of the subject is not established. There are no reliable sources to prove it. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Could not find any source coverage beyond that of the theme park. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom DocumentError (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ali[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person who has published a number of religious books. Article has no third-party sources. The nearest thing I could find to third-party sources were online religious bookshops trying to sell the books. Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only blogs and bookstores in my search bubble, no coverage by anything close to an WP:RS. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Here is one book review in reliable sources. Maybe there are other reviews? His book Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics was popular ca. 2003 in the wake of 9/11, it is a Catholic publisher's attempt to educate curious (Catholic) readers about Islam and seems to have a fair number of mentions in a generic Google Books search. However I am not giving them much weight as they are Catholic books mostly so there is a lack of independence. -- GreenC 08:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A review can help establish a book's notability, but not (in general) its author's. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:AUTHOR #3. Book reviews determine the notability of an author. -- GreenC 19:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable. Fails both: WP:MUSLIM and WP:CATHOLIC. And poorly referenced. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translate plus[edit]

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

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

I originally nominated the article for PROD with the remarks, "I can't establish notability via Google. Even with the awards, the only coverage is on pages associated with the company, the awards, and an industry association the company belongs to." Following on the discussion I had with the creator, who removed the PROD template and added references, at Talk:Translate plus, I've decided to see whether others agree with my reasoning about what constitutes an "independent" source and whether notability is established for this company based on the available sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After extensive web search with google and yahoo I still can't find any proof of notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana(Kannada Actress)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable actor WP:NACTOR ES&L 14:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evan O'Brien[edit]

Evan O'Brien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG (none of the sources cited are independent of the subject, except the LA Times which does not mention the subject). Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has no reliable 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagavatha Dharmam[edit]

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

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

Not a notable journal  Tentinator  09:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is short and has NO sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sources are provided. Honestly WP:BLPPROD would have been a better way to handle this. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLPPROD is only applicable to BLPs... Anyway. I get several hits in Google most of them to a book of the same title. The magazine exists, I found some blog posts and such, but nothing substantial and it doesn't even seem to have a website. --Randykitty (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I did a quick read of the article and thought it said "newsman" for some reason. My mistake! TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 21 days old, no real consensus here Courcelles 17:00, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verb T[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Google turns up almost exclusively material from the record label, from the artist himself, and interviews, but nothing that establishes this musician's notability. TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 12:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep nothing has changed since June so I'm going to copy my rationale from the previous AFD:

I should admit that as a fan I am slightly biased with regards to UK Hip Hop, but I think I can demonstrate that WP:NMUSIC is just met. There isn't any coverage in mainstream media, but Verb T has been around for years and there are quite a lot of things in magazines e.g. this, this, this, this, this and UKHH.com and rapnews.co.uk which used to be the go-to places for UKHH information. The Four Owls are probably the most well known UKHH group ever (I've never got round to writing an article, but it would be easy) as this shows. I admit these sources aren't the best in the world, but for more obscure music genres they're all that there is. Hopefully they show that while he's by no means a household name, he isn't a complete nobody either, and that we could write a neutral article about him. SmartSE (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually something has changed... this review for a new album states:

UK hip hop veteran Verb T has been riding the cusp of the music scene for 15 years and has never failed to impress his supporters with every release. From his time with Lowlife Records, YNR and now High Focus Records, Verb T has brought us classics like Backhand Slap Talk with Kashmere, Bring It Back to Basics with Harry Love and Serious Games to name a few.

If that doesn't demonstrate notability then nothing will. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The article is a list of works only (which would be okay for a very notable person). Poor enough quality that it would have to be recreated from scratch anyway (but that's personal opinion, since it could be incubated). —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article is crap, but that isn't a reason to delete an article about a notable subject: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, largely per my reasoning in the previous AfD - just about scrapes WP:MUSICBIO IMHO. — sparklism ^hey! 13:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 20:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mahabharat (2013) Episodes[edit]

List of Mahabharat (2013) Episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We do not do episode lists for daily airing television programs -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: That's a minor reason to delete - the show being daily aired. But the article should anyways be deleted as it has no importance as such. The show is based on the Mahabharata and thats from where the plot comes. Also, the main article Mahabharat (2013 TV series) does have a plot summary which in itself is a short version of the original book. A separate list of episodes is thus just repetition of stuff. Also, for Indian shows, encyclopedic information like TRP, viewer's rating, episode wise criticism, production details, etc. are not available. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that an article falling under the WP:NOT is not a "minor" reason. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete: Although this article may go against Wikipedia policy, I do believe this article to be of importance as it is a great reference for episode synopsis to those who follow this show, but do not get to watch it during its scheduled time of air. Through this article, those who follow this show are able to quickly read the episode synopsis and then get to make the choice of which episode they would like to watch. I would sincerely appreciate if this article could stay, and am thankful of the person who provides updates to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohfinite (talk • contribs) 01:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOTTVGUIDE. It is not our business to provide such a service, if the creator does not feel it worthwhile to appropriately catalog their works, we do not do so for them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Knowledgeable for all of it's viewers, we also got same kind of pages for even anime. But we need a lot better sources for each episode. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks reliable sources. The Banner talk 12:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EasyVZ[edit]

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

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

Dead OSS project that doesn't meet WP:NSOFT. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This could have been WP:PRODed as deletion seems entirely uncontroversial. Oddly enough it's not even mentioned in OpenVZ, although a line there might be justifiable as it was an attempted GUI for it. There was a blip of news in German about it [1], on a somewhat bloggish-looking site. Update: I've added a mention now. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unreferenced software article of unclear notability. A search turned up blog and forum posts, but no significant RS coverage to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imoblife[edit]

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

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

I could find a single review of this company's product, but not enough to establish WP:CORPDEPTH. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The number of references from prweb.com should give a clue as to the nature of this bunch of references left at the end of the article. I was unable to find any independent in-depth coverage of this topic, a requirement of WP:GNG. What's left is automated listings, press releases, facebook pages and other promotional materials. The article also makes no specific claim to notability. This is just another company. Companies, even if they are big, aren't inherently notable, see WP:CORP. - Metal lunchbox ^(talk) 03:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - poorly referenced software article of unclear notability. Refs provided are PR, an incidental mention, and a download site, none of which constitutes significant RS coverage. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Promotional puff piece, fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Unsourced contested content, deletion is mandatory per WP:V.  Sandstein  12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File grooming[edit]

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

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

I have a strong feeling this is WP:MADEUP. Of course, the practice of rearranging files exists, but I've never heard anyone call it "file grooming" and a web search turned up very little. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The are a couple of web sources out there giving this def (though they might have copied it from Wikipedia) but others use it with a different meaning [2] or yet another one [3] [4] or yet another one [5] (ok, this might be a generalization of the previous one). Anyway, the sources that use the meaning given in this Wikipedia article [6] don't go beyond WP:DICTDEF, so it's hard to see how this page is justified; the same actually applies for the alternative meanings I found. After deletion, it might make sense to redirect to hierarchical storage management, because most RS seem to use it in that context. Someone not using his real name (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, I've created File grooming (disambiguation) with the definitions I've actually found in reliable sources, although I do feel this is a bit of a cheat because those articles linked don't yet cover either topic. I suggest moving that dab to the present title once (i.e. without "disambiguation" in it) after the AfD completes. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• After more googling, I can't find any other sources besides the documentation for that Novell product to use with the 2nd meaning so probably it should just redirect to hierarchical storage management (which is unfortunately a disaster zone right now). Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bambang Sukma Wijaya[edit]

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

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

Reads like an advertisement, appears to be self-promotion with a lack of reliable secondary sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Autobiography. Resume-like. Reads like advertisement and has lots of self-references to his own blog. Suspected sock posting to same article to avoid perception of autobio. So-indicated in the 3 accounts used so far. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 20:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Autobiography fails WP:NOTPROMOTION. Miniapolis 00:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly autobiography and probably not notable. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 21:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Article is also most likely an autobiography. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see that this person meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. See also the article Branderpreneurship about a term proposed by Wijaya and sourced only to his publications; I have PROD tagged it as a non-notable neologism. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that prod tag was removed almost immediately, so I started an AfD discussion about the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Branderpreneurship. --bonadea contributions talk 21:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everything above.LM2000 (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio gone, this is indeed an A7 Courcelles 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marathwada janata vikas parishad[edit]

Marathwada janata vikas parishad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't understand what is the subject of this article. IS it about a person (if yes, then it is unreferenced BLP)? Is it about a lawsuit? Than it lacks notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The bit about the lawsuit and water was a copyvio from a butchered version of this article. I've removed it. The rest of the article is about the public interest organization which filed the suit. MER-C 14:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The article in its current state is a case for speedy deletion under A7 criteria. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Jordan (fighter)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - single top tier fight and that was a loss. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any reference or evidence that makes this guy notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced BLP about an MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Farmer[edit]

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

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

Non notable fails WP:GNG Beerest 2 talk 16:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the other AFDs are about a totally different guy (from the looks of it) Beerest 2 talk 16:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunbatz Men[edit]

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

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

First AfD was not properly tagged to the article page, so closing and renominating. Endorsing the original nominator's reasoning for lack of notability. Safiel (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by Dougweller And to make life simpler, copying that here, including date:

• Repost of 1st AfD Nominator's comment, from 1st AfD Hunbatz Men is apparently a New Age guru. The page hardly discusses him and instead pushes his fringe New Age interpretations of Maya culture. I've Googled for reliable sources and only found a load of New Age dross. Simon Burchell (talk) 9:51 am, 20 December 2013, last Friday (3 days ago) (UTC+0)

• Repost of the only other comment from the 1st AfD - Speedy delete. Not notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I went ahead and brought over the other comment as well, since this is essentially a continuation of the first AfD. Safiel (talk) 19:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've spent some time searching and asking around, and my findings are the same. I think I found 2 brief mentions that he was doing this or that, but they were brief with no discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I first nominated this for deletion, but obviously didn't do it properly. Just an excuse for New Age dross, doesn't even discuss the supposed subject. Simon Burchell (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The best I could say for this subject is that his books were published via a moderately reputable new-age publisher (if that isn't a contradiction in terms), however he does not seem to have attracted the kind of coverage in reliable sources that we'd want from a WP:BLP article. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:G11 by Deb. (non-admin closure) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IFriend[edit]

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

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

The article documents a service which is marginally notable, so I haven't proposed this to CSD. It also appears to be a one-person project. — Carnivorous Bunny (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedied on the grounds of blatant advertising. Deb (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. This was no doubt going to end in deletion anyway, as the article catastrophically fails to be suitable, in several ways. However, we don't need to wait, as it qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G5 (creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban). JamesBWatson (talk) 22:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yog Japee[edit]

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

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

I have concerns about this article. The only potentially reliable source, The Hindu, looks like a PR mention and a speaker's profile. All else is in imdb, not inherently reliable as a source. So I submit it fails WP:GNG Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as solely product of a long-term sock-pile. DMacks (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zerocoin[edit]

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

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

Another altcoin debate. Are you excited?

I started a debate to merge earlier due to two sources being from Forbes and what seems like an academic paper published by the coin's developers. Everything else seems to be forum posts or tweets by the authors. I do not think that the academic paper (which I think is okay to keep as a source, because it also provides for references on it's own) or the Forbes source alone can warrant even a stub article. I am neutral. [citation needed] 14:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keepish. There's also an article in IEEE Spectrum [7], which does appear independent (well, it's mostly an interview) and The Verge gave it a bit of coverage too [8] (as I pointed out in another discussion). Also covered in New Scientist [9] and little bit a NYT journalist's blog [10] and by Business Insider a little bit [11]. Given the precedent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ripple (payment protocol), I'm getting the impression that the nominator doesn't put much effort in finding sources for this type of article before nominating.

  Honestly, I would not object to nominating this again a couple of years from now because the press coverage might be a flash in the proverbial pan due to their extreme focus on Bitconin this year. (Compare to the focus on P2P in the early 2000s and the coverage that one can find for stuff like Mnet (peer-to-peer network), aka Mojonation.) On the other hand, the academic paper was published at the top conference in security (IEEE S&P 2013), so chances are decent it might turn up influential enough in the academic realm, which is mostly just getting started to focus on crypto currencies. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I do have that reputation now, don't I? Actaully, I think I was supportive of Primecoin's inclusion in addition to my own article just a couple of days earlier. [citation needed] 13:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, WP:GNG --Surfer43_¿qué pasa? 18:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to have some media coverage, and the anonymity feature is technically notable. Thue (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:11, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultralife Corporation[edit]

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

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

Advertising page for a non-notable corporation. All of the sources are listings or primary. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sorry, I think this article is just a neutral description of a listed company, I didn't provide any business or revenue related information. Could you give me some advice about which descrition seems like advertisement to you so I can improve this article because its really informative for many potential readers who are interested in stock market about this company. Thx a lot for your help! Ice823cream (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Moved and reformatted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: This is one of 62 articles, all related, all non-notable, and all in extremely similar format that are under investigation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Shows absolutely no indication of meeting either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 03:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wounded (film)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film. Fails references, and fails WP:NFILM ES&L 11:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 13:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There wasn't much or really anything in the way of reviews but I found quite a bit about the film's production, enough to pass notability guidelines for the most part. It took some serious digging, but I managed to uncover quite a bit once I got the search buzz words just right. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above and WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In all fairness, the coverage was pretty difficult to find and if you didn't know the right places to look, it would have been easy to miss. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all fairness, this was a lazy nomination from a user who should know better. Still, Merry Christmas. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep and close as rendered moot. Sourcing has been found and the article improved to show it easily meeting WP:NF. I ask the nominator to reconsider his (now) flawed deletion nomination and urge his withdrawing his nomination. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ernest W. Adams. Merge/redirect; as the redirect comments seem to be thinking of keeping the little content there is over on the Ernest W. Adams article Courcelles 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design[edit]

Andrew Rollings and Ernest Adams on Game Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. It survived an AfD back in 2005, but I feel it does not meet the notability criteria. Boleyn (talk) 11:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Previous AfD "keep" arguments are very unconvincing and do not address GNG at all. The authors are notable, yes; the book is popular, yes; I've even personally used it and cited it. But that doesn't make it automatically notable for a Wikipedia article. There is one Gamasutra review, and that counts as a great GNG source (and pretty much assures an entry in any "list of ... books" article it might belong in). Unfortunately, everything else I can find are just catalog/directory/store entries and a few unreliable reviews/descriptions. The review in the article doesn't appear to be a reliable source. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ernest Adams, as notable (not GNG notable, but real world) work he wrote. Any details on the book can be summarized there nicely without worrying about the book's notability. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect same thinking as MASEM. Given the stub for 8 years, full info can be merged to the author article with nothing lost. If more reviews are found to justify a standalone article recreate as needed. -- GreenC 07:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 17:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Carter[edit]

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

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

Just one book, no biographical data. Article made by a blocked user. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable author in terms of multiple book reviews in reliable sources. -- GreenC 08:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AUTHOR. Not notable at all. I agree with Green Cardamon and the nominator. That one source is not even a source at all to me.Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dirty[edit]

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

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

This article appears to be about a non-notable re-dubbing of the 1989 film Layanam.

• Given the extensive coverage of Indian films and film-makers in Wikipedia, it seems anomalous that there is no article for Balram Sharma, nor one for Ruchi Pictures
• The Ruchi Pictures website claims that the company "was started nearly two decade back in 1979", amongst other things that are of a dubious nature. (For example, the production house "Super Good Films" appears to have started by a different person)
• The four references in this article point to

1. the "Ruchi Pictures" website,
2. the Wikipedia article for Layanam,
3. A YouTube of unknown provenance, and
4. the IMDb entry for Layanam

• Most tellingly, there appears to be no mention at all of this movie in the usual sources for Indian cinema, not even blogs or forums

Article would appear to fail Wikipedia:Notability (films), to say the least. For the reasons set out above, I would also argue against a re-direct to Layanam. Shirt58 (talk) 10:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect – The article fails WP:RS and can’t be verified correctly. Miss Dirty seems to be a colloquial term for Dirty Martini (burlesque) - Pmedema (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete temporarily as being slightly TOO SOON. Allow undeletion or recreation once film is released and WP:NF is met. I also believe the article's title may not be the correct one, which adds to problems in finding sources. Looking afield for actress Silk Smitha writer/director Thulasidas producer Balram Sharma and company Ruchi Pictures for instance shows the project is being discussed. If he wants it to continue work, article can be userfied back to its author with the suggestion that he do a better job of expanding and sourcing. No decent place to redirect. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George G. "Smittie" Smith[edit]

George G. "Smittie" Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

what this comes down to is the leadership of a purely local band, and teaching in a local highschool, With the promotional element of tributes by formrt students. DGG ( talk ) 10:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for obituaries of even such worthy people. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. I can see some local notability for the subject, and more (over a period of about a century from the 1890s on) for Smittie's Band, which has a paragraph in the article and of which he was bandmaster for about half its apparent existence. What I can't see, however, is whether either ever got significant coverage outside Cincinnati and its immediate area. PWilkinson (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki Mets[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable youth sports-team. No sources have been given which might indicate this subject's notability. Salimfadhley (talk) 10:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable youth team. I personally would've taken this through PROD if I had found it. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Muboshgu....William 14:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - frankly, I would have thought about A7 for organizations ... a slam dunk delete. Go Phightins! 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment:: It's playing in the second highest baseball league (Suomi-sarja) in Finland. In 2013 it won Suomi-sarja[12] and in 2014 it will play in SM-sarja per this (which is the highest baseball league in Finland). --Stryn (talk) 12:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, if there is anything to merge to a league article (though frankly the second-highest league in a country not exactly known for its baseball prowess is not inherently notable - likely would need to meet GNG), then that is a possibility, but I still fail to see notability for the team. Go Phightins! 12:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose[edit]

General Finance Acceptance Limited v Melrose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This user has added a number of articles about New Zealand case law. Most of them appear to have no references at all or anything that might give us an impression of the notability (or otherwise) of this topic. Other articles include Nichols v Jessup, Young v Hunt, Couch v Branch Investments (1969) Limited. These all seem like sensible articles, however my overriding concern is that there's a serious danger in giving bad legal information. We ought not to have unsourced legal articles even if they are the 'truth'. Salimfadhley (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I totally disagree with this argument for deletion. Whilst in a perfect world it would be preferable to have the proper legal references, but surely legal articles with allegedly no references is surely better than having no NZ legal articles at all on Wikipedia - my contributions make up 90% of all NZ wiki law articles! And in saying these articles are "non referenced", they all have the correct legal citations so if people want to check / verify the facts, they have the means to do so. Furthermore, some of these mentioned articles, I have included a web link to view the full original court judgment, such as Nichols v Jessup & Young v Hunt. If this is deemed by you to not being a proper reference, I don't know what is. At the end of the day, all of these cases I have done articles on have been cited in NZ legal textbooks for university law students. Surely this meets the wiki notability requirements and I request that these articles are not removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 12:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for the notes of support guys! I again struggle to see Salimfadhley's unreferenced claim, when they all have the proper legal citations, legal info boxes, and in a lot of cases, links to copies of the full original judgments of the court. Anyway, I have now added a reference to support it's notability, so hopefully this makes his concerns redundant. We shall see... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwisheriff (talk • contribs) 07:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The nominator needs to read WP:BEFORE. The fact that an article does not cite any sources is not a valid rationale for deletion, because the nominator is suppossed to look for sources and add them to the article. That said, this article does cite a source, namely the New Zealand Law Reports. The nominators ignorance of New Zealand law ("there's a serious danger in giving bad legal information") is not a valid rationale for deletion either, as the nominator is suppossed to attempt to verify the propositions of fact and law in the article before nominating it for deletion. James500 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC) The nominator should also read Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. If readers take our articles at face value, any consequences that follow are their own fault. James500 (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies GNG: [13][14][15][16][17][18]. James500 (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Not a valid AfD argument. Schwede66 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping for now. Feel free to discuss merges on the talk page per WP:MERGE. Open minded to renomination for deletion with more clear rationale. Please WP:ASG with my decision. Thanks everyone. SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)[edit]

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The clinical trials and acceptence of Novocures electromagnetic "tumor treatment field" invalidated the majority to the article here and serveral reference links. Article fails to meet WPV and WPRS in light of the new advances in medicine 1zeroate (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 15. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 22:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this article is an overlap of Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy which is also subject to an AFD debate right now. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salimfadhley, I agree there's a content overlap, would you support a merge from this article into PEMF? (See my argument below.) Zad68 02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome bot. Also I would report that I saw no yellow box to look for and now I see how I was supposed to do step 3.. awesome. Good bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE As stated the claims that all electromedical devices are scientifically proven to be inneffective are now completely invalidated. Since this artile is not about herbs and the modern advancments in medicine alter our understanding of the past... this whole article is now irrelevent due to innaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 December 2013‎

Note this !vote was made by the originator of this AFD and should not be double-"counted". Zad68 02:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was unnsessesary, the people doing the counting are intellegent enough to see that.

No bueno.lets raise our standards together and rise above the mean.

-Since you placed the AfD, your opinion has been noted, duplicating it is not necessary.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 01:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems you raise can be remedied by editing the page. That claim is made in one sentence in the lead, removing that sentence, and explaining the new evidence would fix the problem, see WP:ATD. 109.78.147.170 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is more than one sentence. The problem is the majority of the article. Many of the refferences are invalidated by a medically acceptable cancer treating frequency device. If it was just one sentence this Nomination would of never happend. But multiple sentences, and reffrences and perspective loyal editors kinda make it a bigger clustermuck to mess with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm not sure thar I understand the deletion rationale, but the fact that electric fields have been used successfully to treat disease does not invalidate the fact that there have been pseudoscientific uses of electomagnetism in this context, and that these uses have garnered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Claiming that would be like saying that the successful use of digitalis nullifies the pseudoscientific use of herbal medicine. 109.78.147.170 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

user 109.78.147.170 ..... you only exist for two posts . Two contributions. That is it. Both here. Are you real or a sock? Not to be rude but it just looks fishey. Can you tell us what else you have edited recently or why this page was were you decided to make your editing debute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of dynamic IPs? I have several recent contributions under different IP addresses, for example, 109.79.112.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). see my reply below. 109.77.102.12 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have heard of Dynamic IPs and VPNs Perhaps you could give some credit to you being a regular and not a sock puppet account established only to sway the outcome here. I mean no disrespect by the accuasation but I find it fishy that you mainly exist here. And have no user page Even as anon I kept user pages. It makes reaching out easier from time to time. All the same I beileve tht if you can not establish yourself then you should not be counted in my opinion.

I have provided evidence above that I have edited before this AfD. Either put your money where your mouth is and take it to WP:SPI or withdraw the accusations. Further accusations will be reported as persistent incivility to a noticeboard. 109.76.33.133 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well my apoligies. I am not gonna even attempt to do much about an anon with a dynamic IP. Their is not much anyone can do. The ability of the rotating IP truly makes you anonymous. I was just hoping to have a means to verify you. I can not tell if you are a secondary account or an individual. You don't care about barn stars or accolades but seem to know the wiki process inside and out. So your intimate knowledge suggests massive amounts of experience. I stand by my beliefe that if you can not or will not prove your individualaity then you should not have a say in the sway of things. But this is not my call. It is a wiki thing. And again I mean no disrespect. I am not trying to be uncivil. I just want some reassurence that your are what you say you are. No offense intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the history of the editor, the analogy of digitalis is not far from wrong. Electromagentic therapy has a pseudoscientific history that Wikipedia should cover. Recent developmenst suggest possible aplications but, far from what you suggest, are not full, mainstream acceptance of efficacy NOR do they invalidate the concerns expressed in the past or contemporarily with these results. We need a balanced approach.--Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 23:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article needs expansion, but appears to be valid--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). (There are currently merge tags on the articles but they point--in my opinion--in the wrong direction.) There appears to be a complete topic overlap between these two articles, but it's the PEMF title that meets WP:TITLE critera and not the title this article has. The PEMF article is better-developed too. Zad68 02:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutly oppose such underhanded tactics of information control. The PEFT article can nominate itself for deletion if editors feel it is warrented. Tagging it to merge with another article already nominated for deletion is unscrupulous. The PEFT article has already been undergoing LOTS of blanking in the last few days and this oppritunity to finish it off... It makes unwilling accomplises to uninvited mechenations. Each article should remain seperate and dealt with seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested in some fashion. The two articles are too similar. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles do not look the same I have looked at them both and while this one has become a bit more stripped than the other that is all they have in common. A LACK OF CONTENT FROM OVER ZEALOUS DELETERS ... Me I thought about it. Tried editing things by the sentence and subject... Tried PROD... I'd of listen to talk and feed back but their was none. Just revert and cold shoulder I'm paying for my edits it right now as the editor I snubed by editing this article is now putting the novocure article on the chopping block. Over citations. yeah right. I mean we all know he didn't have to. but it is what it is.

SIGH.... happy place happy place happy place. pfft trying to find it.

USER 109!!!!! Attention everyone ATTENION everyone I suspect user 109 up above to be a bogus account. Forgive my accusation if it is out of place. I do not know how to do everything. But that particular uses can quote wiki of hand and onl existed to add votes here.

I'd like to have that vote disqualified if the user is unwilling or unable to validate him or her self . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all assume good faith. This is not the venue to be making such accusations, If you think you have evidence against me, go to WP:SPI, where I will defend myself to the fullest, otherwise withdraw your remark. In the words of John Major, put up or shut up. 109.77.102.12 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it is less than politie to tell me to shut up. just FYI . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IF the merger were asked before hand I might of thought about deletion more before acting.... and if a page has a delete marker on it I darn sure would not try to merge with it. I had thoughts and feelings and opinons originally but the ethics of being morally correct compell me. It is never right to merge an article with one up for deletion. Thats just trying to extend your trouble to others. ...no bueno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - It was me who suggested the merge, I did so to bring to the attention of other editors the degree of similarity between these two articles. The article about PEMT and this article are virtually the same topic. We should consider that the correct thing to do in both cases might be to delete both since the sourcing for both articles appears to be borderline garbage. If we are to keep one then this article has the more appropriate title (because it's more general). I do not mean to suggest that this article is any more valid than the other, in my opinion both are highly suspect fringe topics. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And then Merge both Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy AND Tumor Treating Fields into this article. Article should then provide a full account of the pseudo-scientific history of the therapy and give proper, balanced coverage to recent developments. Here note that there is bad WP:FRINGE on the PEMFT article and that efficacy of TTF / Novocure's device is under debate and scrutiny and far, far from mainstream medicine.--Cooper⁴²(Talk)(Contr) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  09:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SuperMexican[edit]

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

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

A movie character, seems to exist, but I was not able to find any reliable sources about him. Ymblanter (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you guys have to make it so difficult for people to create articles here, I've produced XHTML sites that require less nonsense than you fault-finding judgmental people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Locolegacy (talk • contribs) 05:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for apparent lack of coverage. That said - Locolegacy, do you happen to know of any good, independent sources that talk at decent length about SuperMexican?Quantumobserver (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Sabin[edit]

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

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

No evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, she has been a lesbian feminist activist for four decades, serves on major lesbian organizations, and has been and continues to be a visible lesbian activist, as well as half of one of the most well-known lesbian couples. This needs work and it will take time to source everything but I have confidence the sources exist and can be added. Sportfan5000 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On a search the very first thing I found was a lengthy article in the New York Times about her wedding. How many California weddings get reported in the New York Times? On further search I found many Reliable Source citations - USA Today, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. - and added half a dozen to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepAs the aforementioned editors state to some degree, there's no dearth of information on Sabin's community activism online. In particular, her work related to DOMA and Prop8. LuzanneOtte (talk) 06:28, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nomination withdrawn - please close Thanks to everyone who assisted on demonstrating the notability of Sabin. It's now a great article. Boleyn (talk) 10:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Cop[edit]

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

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

I can't see any explanation of how this game meets the notability criteria for video games. The references are either to the company sites or to unreliable sources like YouTube which only show that the game exists Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is liitle common. Well and actually, this was slightly likable and just a reason that it would be reasonable. As of this moment, I'm actually found out that there's already an official page, but Jimfbleak said that it doens't have to be considerable but unsourced. And yes, it's also a rival for Taito's Chase H.Q., the popular police-chase game anywhere inside the country to play this game alone. So that's it... --The Game Expert (talk) 07:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs to have multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject to be considered notable on Wikipedia (see WP:N). An official site in no independent and while YouTube videos could be they are not considered reliable sources outside or rare exceptions (and I see nothing to indicate that is the case here). Also, the game being a rival of a game that is notable would not help either due to WP:NOTINHERITED. If all we have are the official site and YouTube videos this should be deleted since it is not even close to passing the notability guideline. If you can find other sources for us to evaluate that would be helpful since we need more than we have now.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. I cannot find any in-depth coverage, like reviews or even mentions in other context. Nothing linked in the article is GNG-usable. I'm afraid I cannot decypher Tambok0599's argument, but it doesn't address existence of reliable sourcing and thus our notability and inclusion criteria. Obviously, other similar games have no relevance to this game's notability. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sotera Defense Solutions[edit]

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

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

promotional article for defense information services contractor . Makes a great deal of trivial community relations contributions, contains list of all the execs, no major national level awards, and no third party sources that aren't straight POR. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom: this looks suspiciously like one of the cookie-cutter articles on companies posted by spammers. According to this post by the article creator, it was written by an employee of the company (who appears to be under the not uncommon, but mistaken, belief that companies have some sort of entitlement to a Wikipedia entry). Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Cornfeld[edit]

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

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

No improvement in years, borderline notability, written like a resume, and WP:SOAP edits. Many editors appears to have COI. WP:NUKEANDPAVE suggested. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Rastogi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NBIO. While article has two reliable sources, neither establish the subject's notability. Many other sources are available, most of which are social networking links, none of which establish notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being Bell Labs fellow is not enough for C3? Adding to it a GS h-index of 56! Meets C1 (and I am not saying it as an author, I am saying it as Wikipedian first of all).--Mishae (talk) 04:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed with the nomination. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. An h-index of 56 and almost 15,000 (!!!) citations to his articles? Including several articles with over 1000 citations each? (See GS link in article and above). Clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC#1. The article is just a stub and not very good, but there is clear potential for expansion. I don't understand why anyone would take this to AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty must edit the article, and present the essential points. Only 3 sources of this article are really not good enough, and hardly 2.8k bytes. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, I must nothing. AfD is not for cleanup. The article needs work and expansion, but this discussion is solely about whether or not the subject of the article meets our notability guidelines, which he does without any doubt. --Randykitty (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 14:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a little more concrete evidence of notability than just a Google Scholar search. I've searched for some of my college professors, for example, and they come up with much more results, but it doesn't make them notable either. Sure, he's written a lot of academic papers, but that doesn't necessarily establish the fact that he has specifically made a "significant impact" in the field (which WP:ACADEMIC#1 says). –Dream out loud (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You linked Google Scholar to WP:GOOGLETEST, which tells me that you likely are not aware of the fundamental difference between a Google search and a GS search. Perhaps you can read up about it when you have a moment and if the difference still is not clear drop me a note and I'll explain some more. --Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I added Yahoo! Labs news section as a verifiable reference, that's the best I can do here. But to be honest, academics are difficult to write about because they don't appear in the news a lot and their "significant impact" is being praised usually after their death (same goes with the artists by the way). That however doesn't mean that every Wikipedian should wait till a specific academic dies so that he/she can write article about it.--Mishae (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Stunning cites on GS. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep per Xxanthippe. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:PROF#C1 (highly cited works) and #C3 (ACM fellow). Being a Bell Labs Fellow should probably also count as similar to distinguished professor (#C5) — it resembles the distinguished professor title in being both highly selective and given only to one's own employees, unlike the #C3 kinds of fellows which are more open. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that proper references have been added BUT it's important for the creator to understand the additional work he is creating for others by churning out poorly-referenced articles. Why not just do the work in the first place? Deb (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged to Karen Latham by nominator. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 19:23, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Latham[edit]

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

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

• Very young (born in 1984), she seems to be very talented, but does not seem to have built up a body of work yet
• Unable to find much source information, except for her having won a high school student contest for a duck stamp (1998, 2000 articles)
• Unable to find her works at museums
• Her biography seems very similar to Karen Latham, her mother and Rebecca Latham, her sister - who have a shared website CaroleHenson (talk) 03:21, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did find this page, which may have been from the artist - but it has specific dates, etc. Absolute Arts. I still question whether she is notable, per WP:ARTISTS and whether the Absolute Arts source is considered viable, since it would be the main source for the article. Please see Talk:Karen Latham about merger of mother-daughter articles. Feedback would be great!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC) UpdateCaroleHenson (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There seem to be three almost identical articles about family members. DO they work together? Seems like a mess. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep (mess, essentially dupe articles). My proposition, since they work and show together... and share a website is: Add a paragraph to Karen Latham's article mentioning her partnership with her daughters Bonnie Latham and Rebecca Latham - and that they exhibit their work together - add a bit about the daughters having won the Duck Stamp competitions. Then redirect the daughter's articles to Karen Latham. I am happy to do that if that seems the best way to go.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to mother per User:CaroleHenson. Her notability is not above questioning, but I would accept it. Johnbod (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Question" I've not seen any updates in a bit. Does this mean we're good to go for me merging the articles?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Merge is a good idea. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have completed the merge of Bonnie Latham and Rebecca Latham to Karen Latham and am expanding that article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Siyani Chambers[edit]

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

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

Not my usual area, but I dod not see how ivy league rookie of the year in college basketball amounts to notability. I'd me more inclined to call it a junior award, with the meaning might be notable some day. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Has had a notable high school and college career. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Rookie of the year award was only part of what made him notable. He was a major member of a Harvard team that received nationwide media coverage due to its run in the NCAA tournament. Much of this coverage focused specifically on Chambers and his contributions to the team. Furthermore, he was the subject of quite a bit of media coverage in the preseason due to his inclusion on the Cousy Award watchlist (given annually to the best point guard in D1) and the large expectations for Harvard. Rupert'sscribe (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 02:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Spurlin[edit]

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

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

Biographical article fails WP:GNG - neither a Bronze Star nor being in a single reality show season makes a person encyclopedic. At best this is a BLP1E candidate and perhaps a small amount of this information should be merged into Top Shot.

Of relevance is that the subject has requested deletion for privacy reasons. [19] NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge non-private material with Top Shot (season 2). Gamaliel (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is no actual evidence that the subject requested deletion. (The revision history] for this article is littered with death threats from anonymous IP contributors demanding this page be deleted, and the diff claiming to be the subject has no evidence it's the subject.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 07:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable indpendent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sergeant fails WP:SOLDIER, an essay I consider useful, and a brief TV appearance in a shooting competition is insufficient for notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable subject. Redirect the name to the parent article for the TV show (or individual season's article). -- John Reaves 23:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and point of order I agree with NBSB, however we don't know if the person claiming to be the subject is actually the subject.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the deletion request sounds dubious, but with borderline notability at best, we should err on the side of caution. StAnselm (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable reality show contestant. The fact that somebody claiming to be the subject requested deletion is of zero relevance, as always. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOLDIER and WP:BLP1E; not enough relevant material for merge to Top Shot. Miniapolis 21:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If that ends up being the consensus, when will the deletion take place? I'd like to know so I can move some of the content to the Season 2 article on Top Shot. Thief12 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily, AfD discussions stay open at least seven days; however, since this is a snow-close candidate you may want to merge the content sooner rather than later. All the best, Miniapolis 16:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Conner[edit]

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

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

I see no conceivable notability, fairly clear violation of BLP, and am amazed that this was ever accepted from AfC. . DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Following up to leave a notice, I see it was never properly accepted on AfC. The reviewer correctly declined it as not having sufficient sources, and then the original contributor accepted it by himself. Oddly, we have no way of preventing it, or even notifying the original reviewer about it, or catching it at NPP or anywhere else. I and others have been asking for this starting from long before this article was written. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence that the subject meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria, and the article has WP:BLP problems, with the editorialising in its final sentence. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concurr with the nominator. I would support WP:SPEEDY on this one. There are no articles on Wikipedia that link to this author so it is not useful as a citation for other articles. The claim in the article for notability leaves me with a "That's the best you got?" feeling and if it were all true and reliable, I still fail to see the notability for the author.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Not notable at all, not even just one bit. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 16:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Not notable at all, not even just one bit" sums it up.LM2000 (talk) 04:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telenor Culture Award[edit]

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

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

Zero sources establishing notability. COI creation, deleted via prod, undelete requested by conflicted editor.No interest of independent interest. Guy (Help!) 01:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For information (writing with a COI on this delete page), for those interested there are 15 independent media/sources listed at the talk page of the article. 13 of these are Norwegian, the others are from India and Pakistan (in English). Bjoertvedt (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is substantial coverage of the awards every time they are given out. Even if it weren't independently notable it would be a clear merge to the parent company Telenor. But I don't see why the nom thinks there isn't substantial coverage? Several sources were posted to the talk page when it was prodded (as per Wikipedia instructions) and a Google News search reveals plenty more. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sham has gone on long enough. See Talk:Telenor Culture Award for a discussion about the the so-called "independent" coverage. For example this was posted as "Reuters" coverage, when it's a just a press release, etc. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the award generates significant media coverage every year when awarded (some of which are listed on the talk page; I have found others). The coverage is sufficiently overwhelming that there can be little doubt of the award being notable per WP:GNG. Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been through the list of links given this is the only one that appears to be about the award rather than using the award as a wp:Coatrack. Give me another couple that devote more than two lines to the award itself because right now I'm not seeing that much notability especially for a corporate award. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weeeaaakkk keep: it seems to me that the fact that so many independent sources have chosen to publish Telenor's press releases is weak evidence of notability. Even if those press releases are all penned by the company, someone at those newspapers is choosing to publish them. It would be better if there was a more independent source, of course. Ivanvector (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neonchamaleon and others, see Talk page of this article for several examples. BR, Bjoertvedt (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Believe it or not I had - although on rechecking the Economic Times of India also had a substantial section on the award itself - and right at the top of the page. The second link, for example, isn't much to do with the Telenor award other than mentioning in passing that the award exists and that the winners have it - a single sentence in paragraph nine about the gigs played. That's what I mean - the press releases that make up the pages on the talk page aren't about the Telenor award. They are press releases about the winners. Neonchameleon (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An award with a significant cash prize, given for 18 years. This looks like significant coverage to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If an award repeatedly gets coverage when it's awarded, that's sufficient, even if the coverage is mainly about the winners. Puffery can be edited, but I don't think that deleting the basic facts on an award like this furthers Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalina Lydster[edit]

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

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

I dod not see that one jewelry design for a pageant make notability. But this is a specialized field, and there might be more to be found DGG ( talk ) 14:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The substantial write-ups in the Star-Bulletin and Asian Week should be enough to meet WP:BIO. Besides co-designing the Miss Universe crown, she was an official jeweler for the Academy Awards and is something of a jeweler to the stars, counting "Jessica Alba, Paris and Nicky Hilton, Tori Spelling, Tara Reid, Pamela Anderson and Eva Longoria" among her clients. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 23:16, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:BASIC per these articles: Las Vegas Sun and Star Bulletin. There's also this article from Asian Week, but I'm uncertain about the reliability of the source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Greenhouse (album)[edit]

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

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

Does not establish notability. Lachlan Foley (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence that the album meets WP:NALBUMS. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert B. Tresville[edit]

Robert B. Tresville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:MILPEOPLE criteria. – S. Rich (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG. See [20], [21], [22], [23], [24](p63). Pburka (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG as articulated by Pburka Stevenmg (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG as articulated by Pburka Emilenkie (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.23.76.15 (talk) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance[edit]

Juvenile Diabetes Cure Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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