< 27 January	29 January >

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

The result was redirect to Group_1_Crew#Band_members. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Callahan[edit]

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

No WP:RS to support notability outside of her involvement with the band Group 1 Crew. She is now essentially a studio musician. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Group 1 Crew. Insufficient independent notability without Group 1 Crew. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Group_1_Crew#Band_members - She is only best known for Group 1 Crew at this time and although she has been a "featured artist" with some other artists including notable ones such as TobyMac, there isn't any notability for an article. Google News searches for the featured work provided some results but nothing substantial, this for KJ-52 (three results, two of them are specifically for each of the albums) and this and this for TobyMac but nothing for Michael Tait and Mandisa. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 31 January 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 Crime against nature. The consensus is clearly to keep the article's content. However, the content itself should be merged to Crime against nature. No one has explicitly argued against a merge, just to keep the article's content. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnatural act[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AFD). PROD reason was: The article seems biased since there are may other usages of the term unnatural act. The article has been around for years and nobody has improved it sofar.. Illia Connell (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As explained in the prior AfD, it's an old legal concept. Note all the articles with links to this one. One might consider a merge and redirect to crime against nature; my 1951 Black's Law Dictionary defines "unnatural offense" as "the infamous crime against nature, i.e., sodomy or buggery". --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge I have seen nothing in wikipedia oability guidelines saying old rules are notable as a stand-alone article. Pass a Method talk 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but probably ~~redirect~~ merge. It lacks careful delineation of scope. As a historical legal concept, it's notable, as some of these search results indicate. However, as a matter of legal history, you could probably redirect it to crime against nature (as does this edition of Barron's Law Dictionary[1]). That article has its own problems, though. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then merge to Crime against nature. - Dravecky (talk) 07:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Keep then merge to Crime against nature. -- The Anome (talk) 11:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant coverage in secondary sources, including scholarly sources, books, and in-depth investigative journalism media reportage. — Cirt (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Crime against nature. The legal concept is notable, but the specific language of different statutes doesn't seem to warrant separate articles. Cnilep (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'd come to agree that this should have to be merged. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge works for me as well. If that ends up being the result, please don't forget to re-redirect Unnatural sex in the same manner, as that currently redirects here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Afd is not meant for article improvement or merger discussions. BTW, merge per above. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TO SILENCE (FILM)[edit]

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

Short, unreferenced article about a film. Unable to find any sources on Google news. I'm not even sure the film exists. - Mr X 23:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Tiggerjay (talk) 23:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to meet WP:NFILM. Mkdw ^talk 06:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - couldn't unearth any sources on this at all. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. --Beloved Freak 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search under the title (since that's all we ultimately have) and wasn't able to locate a film by this name. It would genuinely help if we had more to go by, but until we have more data with which to search with I'm going to have to say that this film is ultimately not notable at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Provides only a plot summary (such as it is) with no sourcing or any sort of details that would allow other editors to find sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of significant sources. LenaLeonard (talk) 21:55, 31 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coral GROUP[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for 5 years; couldn't establish notability Boleyn (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep #2 deletion spree. Unscintillating (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Nominating a large number of articles - all of which have been tagged for notability for at least 5 years - does not meet speedy keep no. 2. Boleyn (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable terminology in WP:SK#2 is "unquestionable disruption". Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 1 February 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 00:35, 21 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 28 January 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. Stop: WP:HAMMERtime. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Fourth Studio Album (Daughtry)[edit]

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

A future album with no known release date, no title, no WP:RSes and only WP:PRIMARY sources for information. Delete until RSes weigh-in. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way early for this - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, etc. Gong show 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL on a good day, and only sourced to the artist's twitter feed. Awesome! These are really annoying. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until it decides to provide a release date, some tracks and maybe a title. Supported by references would be a plus. Funny ^Pika! 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NALBUM #1 regarding the lead up to its release. Mkdw ^talk 06:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Besides there not being enough information for this article to exist, articles about upcoming albums that do not yet have titles should be called "(name of band/musician)'s nth studio album" and the article should open with the sentence "the nth studio album by (name of band/musician)". Whoever created this article needs to learn about that and the WP:CRYSTAL guideline. Epzik8 (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:14, 30 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crow stew[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources that the dish really exists. The Banner talk 22:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being considered for deletion on two counts: 1) lack of notability and 2) "no reliable sources." Regarding the first count, I would argue that crow stew is as notable as other stews listed on Wikipedia. It's certainly at least as notable as Booyah. A quick Google search for "Crow stew recipe" yields many crow stew recipes. In fact, it yields more recipes than Booyah stew.

The article also passes the test for deletion on the second count, since Willow Creek Press' publication titled "Eat Like a Wild Man" (ISBN 1572230886) is a credible source.

--Jvanek01 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX; the fact that other stuff exists is an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. Notability is established for this stew and this stew alone; the presence or absence of other stews on Wikipedia has absolutely no relevance to whether or not crow stew is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood.--Jvanek01 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to address the concerns raised in this discussion, I’ve updated the article and included extensive research on the topic. --Jvanek01 (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Non-notable dish that had an article created in response to a talk-show mention. Only passing mentions in sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the article was created only after “crow stew” had been mentioned on a talk show should not be cause for deletion.--Jvanek01 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is, because it was a clear invitation to create the article. The Banner talk 11:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as I can tell, creating an article after the topic had been mentioned on a television show, or other popular media, does not violate Wikipedia’s rules for creating articles. The argument is also illogical (it’s another form of an ad hominem). The article should be judged on its content; not the inspiration for its creation. The fact that the inspiration for the article had come from this source, as opposed to another, does not give the subject any less credibility. We don’t give less weight to gravity (pun intended) because Newton’s inspiration for the theory had supposedly come from him being hit on the head by a falling apple.--Jvanek01 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established notoriety in Prince Achille Murat account from the 1820’s. The account that Murat served "crow stew" to his guests is recorded in multiple sources. A sour-cream based recipe for the dish “crow stew” appears in several publications from the 1930’s, including the journals Outdoor Indiana and Nebraskaland. A very similar recipe (also sour-cream-based) is reproduced in Rebecca Gray's Eat Like a Wild Man (1997). A technique for cooking "crow stew" is described by Chassagnard in the Dictionary of French Cuisine. These sources are now cited in the article. Based on the multiple sources, most referring to a sour-cream-based dish with crow meat, I believe crow stew to be a real dish (regardless of the fact that it was mentioned on tv).--Jvanek01 (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You mix up "the recipe exists" with "being notable". The Banner talk 12:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I’ve actually never equated the existence of the recipe to its notability, nor have I used the phrase "the recipe exists", as your quote suggests. You’ve built a straw man. The fact that essentially the same sour-cream-based recipe (not typical of most stews) for the dish exists in multiple sources, and can be traced to the 1930’s, is yet further evidence (in addition to the other historical evidence I provided above) that this very specific “dish really exists,” contradictory to your claim that it did not.--Jvanek01 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe crow stew isn't something a Michelin star-winning chef would make, but surely it is a notable dish with our beloved hill folk in America. Please don't discriminate against those with less teeth than you. This is a direct violation of WP:DISCRIMINATION policy (protected category: culture), "Offering deletion of articles, categories and other content in Wikipedia on base of discrimination." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crissibeth (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC) — Crissibeth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Ah, a good laugh is always welcome! You have indeed a good sense of humour! The Banner talk 16:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable dish which has been around for quite some time now, even getting coverage for being served by a prince over a century ago. We need a guideline page for foods since this does come up at times for food related articles, such as those found in Category:stews and category:foods. Dream Focus 15:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now a notable article with reliable inline citations Keep!--DThomsen8 (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Esta comida nunca falta en un asado argentino.Florencia peña video hot senscape (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)— Florencia peña video hot senscape (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The second SPA. Something fishy is going on... The Banner talk 10:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conan fans, no doubt. Theoretically this dish could be notable, but the book and newspaper sources I am finding are mostly passing mentions. There's a comical background to the whole idea of it.[2]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now reliable sources addressing WP:GNG. The content largely avoids WP:NOTGUIDE and puts it in line with other disk articles. Perhaps it is more obscure a dish, but notability is decided in the independent and reliable sources. Mkdw ^talk 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing my !vote following the article improvement - nice work; it's barely notable, but notable it is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:38, 4 February 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) 18:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Centrum Wiedzy[edit]

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

Completely nonnotable sizzled attempt for an ambitious information portal. It has a handful primitive pages and no progress. I guess, wikipedia killed it :-) Staszek Lem (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like something that never got off the ground and is now pretty much just a blog. Impossible to determine prior (or current) notability under WP:WEB or anything else. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. So far I see neither nothing notable in article content, nor significant coverage in refs. I proposed a deletion on Polish Wiki: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2013:02:02:Centrum Wiedzy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:23, 2 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Bouchet[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable musician. News coverage limited strictly to the Portland, Oregon neighborhood. Bouchet's music being "featured in the television show Portlandia amounts to a single episode where she was a musician playing a gig in a bookstore. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Portlandia appearance might meet WP:MUSICBIO #10, but, as the guideline states, that criterion alone is not enough to warrant an article, and I'm not seeing enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG or the other WP:MUSICBIO criteria. Gong show 22:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Too soon perhaps, but what there is out there right now fails to establish notability. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The Portlandia episode Angel performed her original tune in is an internationally viewed program and that is sufficient to meet the wiki criteria for being "notable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.125.99.248 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MUSIC does state (in criterion 10) that appearance in a notable work of media such (including an appearance in a television show) means that an artist may be notable. It goes on to state that if this is the only event for which the artist is notable, then a stand alone article is probably not in order, but rather a mention at the article about the television show (if appropriate within the context of the article -- remember WP:UNDUE -- don't give undue weight to unimportant facts) is probably the better solution. (See WP:BLP1E). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. The Portlandia appearance meets WP:MUSICBIO #10 as it is an internationally viewed program, Angel Bouchet is further mentioned for that episode in Paste Magazine, listed in the Portlandia Wikipedia page, and also on IMDb.

[3]

http://www.google.com/urlsa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_Portlandia_episodes&ei=1xMKUdCsNaGTiQKTlYDQBw&usg=AFQjCNEx3QbjRkjnxZEkxUODtOl8uvb5Fg&bvm=bv.41642243,d.cGE]

[4]

67.5.213.86 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 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 Castrol#Advertising. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than just oil. It's liquid engineering.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's more than just oil. It's liquid engineering.

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

Speedy contested. Non-notable advertising slogan. Of course there's 1,000,000 sources, the company has paid to put it in ads.--Wtshymanski (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Castrol. The page has other content about Castrol's ad campaign. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete. I supported the existing merge nom on its talkpage before it headed to afd, but the rationale would work just as well for deletion if there is nothing others think is salvageable. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Castrol, where this obviously belongs. No evidence for independent notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castrol#Advertising. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Definitely a strong merge case considering the lack of content or reliable sourcing to warrant its own standalone article. Mkdw ^talk 06:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator - merge would be good, but do we even need to keep the redirect? It's not like it's Where's the beef?. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the redirect intact to pervert further attempts at creation consider this has already gone to an AfD. Also, the article will have a relatively good sized section after the merge which a redirect would specifically be directed at. I'm not hugely opposed but I think in the long term it would be suitable. Mkdw ^talk 03:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:55, 30 January 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) 18:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Magnifico[edit]

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

Louis doesn't seem to be all that magnifico. IMDb credits him with a documentary (in which he seems to have done just about everything himself), but not his purported TV show. I also can't find him or any of his musical groups in AllRovi. The only press coverage I can find is an article in the Memphis Flyer, a free alternative newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there are some claims of notability at Talk:Louis Magnifico. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - Despite multiple detailed Google News searches including his bands Vintage and Kiss Me Quick, his company Digital Deacons and A Day in the Life, I found nothing substantial aside from an event listing in the Commercial Appeal. Unless he has used other alias (at the talk page, a user mentioned he used Luigi Mangiafico), I haven't found any significant links about him or the group themselves. I tried searching at the Memphis Daily News website but it requests subscription. To satisfy my curiosity, I searched at a Nashville newspaper, The Tennesseean but found nothing relevant. I'm willing to reconsider if other sources are found. SwisterTwister talk 20:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the coverage needed for inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete It does not help searches that this fellow share the name with a boxer, but pretty much his career of two non-notable films misses out on meeting WP:FILMMAKER and lack of coverage misses out on meeting WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Mangalnath Maharaj[edit]

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

This is a hagiography of some sort--or, assuming that the person is still living (hard to figure out since it's completely unreferenced), a promotional piece. A kind of reference appears to be given but it is so incomplete that it's impossible to judge if and what that source actually says, and if that is reliable or not. Google delivers nothing but the usual forums and Facebook pages. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Effectively unreferenced article, heavy with POV. I'm not finding any WP:RS evidence of notability. (Happy to change that view if someone locates convincing references in a non-Latin script, of course.) AllyD (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per AllyD. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Notability cant established, looks like promotional article. Not referenced which was created in 2009.--Nizil (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to meet WP:ANYBIO whether they're alive or dead. Definitely troubling with no WP:RS and no apparent ones after a quick search. Most of the article is about his teachings but does not come close to WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. Mkdw ^talk 01:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sam Lloyd. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 10:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Butties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Butties

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). No charted albums, so significant coverage, no major awards, and not an prominent representative of a notable style. Band contains one notable member, but the notability requirements state the for a band to be notable it must contain "two or more independently notable musicians". Hirolovesswords (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Lloyd per above comment. A search for "The Butties" "Sam Lloyd" returns a few news hits, but nothing to make the band really stand out from its most notable member. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Ritchie333. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the only notable member involved as above. --Lockley (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Canterville Ghost. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canterville - The musical[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:GNG; zero coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested without comment by anonymous IP account. Altered Walter (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Canterville Ghost which briefly mentions this musical. This title is a possible search result, although someone's unlikely to type this exact name with that punctuation and capitalization. The musical isn't notable; there's a lack of media coverage from Google search results. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My issue with including this particular adaptation of TCG in the main article is that there wasn't really anything out there to suggest that it is particularly noteworthy. I'll do another search, but when I'd researched this via PROD I didn't see where it'd received any coverage to where it'd be worth redirecting and mentioning. I can see perhaps using the title as a general redirect, but I'm not sure that this specific musical would be worth mentioning. It exists, but it doesn't seem to be any more notable than any of the various "musical interpretation of X" that get made and performed each year.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Canterville Ghost. This musical seems to have had just a single concert performance, last November. Listings in various blogs and music event directories, but nothing substantial in a reliable source, that I could see. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:19, 4 February 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Reza Eslami[edit]

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

Not notable. lack of independent sources to prove notability. In fact 15:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 days ago It was deleted for the very same reason in the Persian Wikipedia. In fact 08:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Membership in Iranian Academy of Sciences confirmed by [5]. That said, I'm deleting the claim to be an ASME fellow, as verification failed on that score [6]. Ray^Talk 04:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C3 (the academy membership). Also, his citation record in Google scholar (four papers with over 100 cites each) is enough to make a plausible case for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the claims in the article including the awards and the books are unsourced ! In fact 05:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A GS h-index of 20 in an average cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 (Search for "M R Eslami"). Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 2 February 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 GregJackP Boomer! 00:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) (NAC, nominator withdrew nomination here)[reply]

Texas Slave Ranch[edit]

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

Notability. Seems to be a re-creation of a short-term interest news item that was mostly localized to one ranch in Texas. The only live link to a source in the article is to a brief NY Times article. It was created by a redlink editor who had no other edits. — Maile (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Notability requirements states, "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest..." — Maile (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't double !vote. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Mistake. Thanks for correcting. — Maile (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Texas ranch event (including abducting and enslaving workers) being reported on as far away as Pittsburg and New York City seems to have transcended the local news coverage criterion. Based on the fact that there is also a book that seems to be from a non-vanity press I'd say there's decent reason to suppose it's cleared the GNG guideline. Could the article do with re-writing and fixing? Yes, but AFD's not for Article cleanup. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, based on what you found, I wouldn't mind seeing this AFD closed right now as a Keep. However, I also wish somebody would adopt the article and bring it up to code, rather than it being tossed back as is, where it's susceptible to lots of tags. Isn't my type of thing to edit, but I'm sure someone could make a pretty nice little piece out of it, just by reading the book you have referenced. But, yes, you've proven it's notable. — Maile (talk) 17:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've done a polish up on the article, removing some of the sensational content, and moving content into citation references. Hasteur (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we get somebody close this out? Do we just let it stay here until a sysop steps in to close it? — Maile (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any uninvolved editor is free to apply a NAC closure on grounds that the nominator has withdrawn the nominaton or you may close out the nomination yourself on the same withdrawn reasoning. I would have, but because I contributed to the article and this AfD I am prohibited from making the change myself per WP best practices. Hasteur (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears to pass WP:N/CA, books written regarding event long after 1986, therefore passes WP:PERSISTENCE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:21, 28 January 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) 18:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroyuki Tsuchida[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per the deletion review this has severe issues that need community input. As this is a procedural listing following from my close of the DRV I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --DAJF (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A random murderer. No evidence of influence on law, culture, and society beyond being a news item for some time. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Otaku#Negativity, and merge whatever is viable to that. Not being familiar with this culture thing, if someone has an issue with my estimate of where this fits please let me know. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Otaku#Negativity. Agree with FreeRangeFrog. It looks like there's already significant content on this topic there, not much else in this article that could be added, and not enough to justify splitting off the content from that article. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a single murder which received only typical transient levels of news coverage at the time of arrest and at the time of conviction, making this a textbook WP:BLP1E case. Neither of the news sources cited mention anything about Evangelion, nor do they describe him as an otaku, so I would oppose the idea of redirecting to the Otaku article. --DAJF (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Otaku article already provides coverage of this topic. Therefore, a redirect makes perfect sense. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I can't see any mention of this person in the Otaku article, and the article does not appear to have been edited since then. The Otaku#Negativity section quite rightly discusses the crimes by Tsutomu Miyazaki and Kaoru Kobayashi, as these people/events received widespread coverage for years afterward, to the extent that they could be considered "household names" in Japan. However, as no reliable sources have been forthcoming to suggest that this murder caused similar social hand-wringing or a backlash against otaku, I still don't see how we can justify redirecting to the Otaku article. In fact, I would go as far as to say that redirecting in the absence of any such news coverage could be a WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ANN sources mention Evangelion, but they do not call Tsuchida an otaku. (The Google Translate output of the Japanese articles is pretty mangled, so I cannot comment on them.) Flatscan (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poorly-sourced BLP1E, fails WP:CRIME. There are also two Anime News Network articles (translations and maybe summaries of now-dead Japanese newspaper sources) from the start of the trial and sentencing that describe the Neon Genesis Evangelion connection/motive. Note that most of the January 2013 revisions before DAJF's trimming had refs used on text that they did not support. I have not seen any source mention otaku or the "moral panic" from this version. The superficial news coverage does not justify an article about the event (Murder of Etsuko Tsuchida) under WP:Notability (events)#Criminal acts. A merge would do disservice to Otaku#Negativity by lumping Tsuchida in with Tsutomu Miyazaki and Kaoru Kobayashi. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete I pushed for this to come to AfD, but A) this is a BLP one-event violation and B) I'm not seeing reliable sources strong enough to justify an event article. Also the proposed redirect doesn't mention him, so don't think that's a good idea. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the page, I am sure that this directly falls under what is considered not notable per the one event notability guideline. He has only been mentioned at all because of this incident, which may even fall under what we call trivial coverage of information; thus, he also falls the general notability guideline. — Ṙ ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a person known only for a single event. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is sourced, and if the notability were questionable, he wouldn't have been in that encyclopedia in the first place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Frederich[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The page on German Wikipedia[7] has better references, indicating he may be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, ridiculous nomination from an author that doesn't seem to understand the basics of sourcing and verifiability. What needs verification? The tet comes from an existing encyclopedia, as evidenced by the note. Kumioko is quite aware of this, he notes on my talk page that I copy paste the text from an existing source, which is correct but obviously contradicts his claim that he needs verification.

This painter specifically has, apart from his entry in Bryan (which should be sufficient), an entry in Bott[8] or a paragraph in this article[9] (to give only some freely available sources, more recent ones are usually not freely available). Plus of course the sources identified in the German Wikipedia article. I have no idea where the "questionable notability" comes from. It seems that the nominator for these three AfDs has forgotten WP:BEFORE... Fram (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram I have created hundreds of articles and I completely understand sourcing and verifiability. I also understand that these articles don't meet it and after looking for additional sources I came up with nothing. I also do not like the fact that you created them nearly verbatim of the source only changes a few small things. If you think they need to be kept that's fine but don't attack me because I think they are poorly written, poorly sourced and have questionable notability. I would also note that in the early days of Wikipeda general references were fine but in recent years it is preferred to use inline citations. As far as Before goes, I checked for references using google news, books and scholar and I left a note on your page asking you to add some but you refused. So now we are here. Kumioko (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you actually did was this note[10], which made incorrect claims (the articles are not unsourced, obviously) and threatened to AfD them if I didn't fix theù first. You gave not a single specific indication of what was supposed to be the problem, didn't indicate that you tried to find any more info but failed (which may be true for this article, but is hardly believable for something like Heinrich Freudweiler), you didn't indicate that you believed that the articles were unverifiable (which, since they had a reliable source, would have been wrong anyway); you just claimed "they are unsourced - source them or I'll AfD them". Sorry, but that's not how it works here on so many levels. To just name the most basic one; even being unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. Fram (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the other AFD I gave you the opportunity to fix the mess you created but you refused so I submitted them to AFD. The citation you gave is not a reference, its a hatnote. It doesn't give any of the information required in a citation. Who is the publisher, what page is the text found on, etc. Calling that a citation is laughable. Also, its not just the matter of the citation. You plagiarized the work copying virtually the entire article word for word. I also searched google for additional references and came up empty. Maybe there are some maybe there aren't but these articles sorely need additional refernces and a complete rewrite to not be plagiarisms of the orginal "reference". Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Hatnote"? You've really lost the plot now... The source is alpahabetical, I give the name of the exact entry; how is that worse than giving a page number? It's not as if you have to read the whole source to get the exact location, it is right there in the note on the article. And the fact that you don't understand "plagiarism" at all has now been plastered on enough pages, I think everyone gets your lack of point by now. Fram (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make you a deal Fram, if you can show me a policy somewhere that says its ok to cut and paste text from a source, out of print or otherwise and that its ok to create a Wikipedia article with said cut and pasted text without changing it. Or if you can show me a policy that says that the Note format you are using is an acceptable citation format, please let me know and I will watchdraw this. Kumioko (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have been within spitting distance of a point if the text was unattributed. You did note the existence of Template:Bryan in each of these articles, yes? Tarc (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You linked to the policy yourself, Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Take a look at [[Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, the relevant section here: "A public domain source may be summarized in the same way as it is for copyrighted material (and cited in the same way as copyrighted material), but the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim. If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page". Looking at other attribution templates, some are more elaborate, some are Much simpler, like Template:1828 Webster's Dictionary, and some are quite similar, like Template:Nuttall. Improvements to the attribution template used can be discussed at the template talk page of course. Thanks for the withdrawal of the AfDs! Fram (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That still doesn't prove a thing Fram. Yes it may be "summarized" not copied. I have asked User:Moonriddengirl about this issue. She is pretty much the expert on Copyright and things related to it soif she says these are good I will withdraw. Kumioko (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can lead you to the water, but I can't make you drink... "but the source's text can also be copied directly into a Wikipedia article verbatim." If you don't know the relevant policies, don't start AfD's (or make demands at people's user pages), but try to get more information "beforehand". You are fast becoming a net negative on Wikipedia, wasting the time of many people (not just me) over and over again with ridiculous accusations, baseless claims, useless demands and general cluelessness. Fram (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram you are being ridiculous and overly defensive. Why can't you just wait until the AFD finishes. You also have to finish what that says: If the text is copied then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation, which is usually placed in a "References section" near the bottom of the page.... That still doesn't mean we should be doing it and its still a lazy way to write an article even if it is allowed. It reduces Wikipedia's integrity when we direct copy information from a source without citing it even if it is a public work. Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Fram. Article is plainly not unsourced, and the subject's entry in a "standard reference work" is prima facie evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is sourced, and if the notability were questionable, he wouldn't have been in that encyclopedia in the first place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Freese[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, ridiculous nomination from an author that doesn't seem to understand the basics of sourcing and verifiability. What needs verification? The tet comes from an existing encyclopedia, as evidenced by the note. Kumioko is quite aware of this, he notes on my talk page that I copy paste the text from an existing source, which is correct but obviously contradicts his claim that he needs verification.

This painter specifically has, apart from his entry in Bryan (which should be sufficient), an entry in Clement [11], Ebe[12], Champlin & Perkins[13]... I have no idea where the "questionable notability" comes from. Fram (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram I have created hundreds of articles and I completely understand sourcing and verifiability. I also understand that these articles don't meet it and after looking for additional sources I came up with nothing. I also do not like the fact that you created them nearly verbatim of the source only changes a few small things. If you think they need to be kept but don't attack me because I think they are poorly written, poorly sourced and have questionable notability. I would also note that in the early days of Wikipeda general references were fine but in recent years it is preferred to use inline citations. Kumioko (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for demonstrating my point. These articles are copies from a public domain source, as indicated clearly in the "notes" section. For this kind of article, "inline citations" are definitely not preferred, as I don't source sentence X or Y to the source, but I copy the source. You haven't indicated "what" you wanted to verify when you demanded sources (not "additional sources", you claimed that these articles were unsourced). Since the articles were taken straight from a reliable source, I didn't feel the need to justify your demands with any effort. If you had had any specific questions, I would have gladly answered, but this basic and baseless approach doesn't deserve any further effort. Fram (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Fram. Article is plainly not unsourced, and the subject's entry in a "standard reference work" is prima facie evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is sourced, and if the notability were questionable, he wouldn't have been in that encyclopedia in the first place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jan George Freezen[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alternative names[14]:

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

--Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, ridiculous nomination from an author that doesn't seem to understand the basics of sourcing and verifiability. What needs verification? The tet comes from an existing encyclopedia, as evidenced by the note. Kumioko is quite aware of this, he notes on my talk page that I copy paste the text from an existing source, which is correct but obviously contradicts his claim that he needs verification.

This painter specifically has, apart from his entry in Bryan (which should be sufficient), an entry in Houbraken[15], Immerzeel[16], Hobbes[17], Nagler[18]... I have no idea where the "questionable notability" comes from. Fram (talk) 15:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fram I have created hundreds of articles and I completely understand sourcing and verifiability. I also understand that these articles don't meet it and after looking for additional sources I came up with nothing. I also do not like the fact that you created them nearly verbatim of the source only changes a few small things. If you think they need to be kept but don't attack me because I think they are poorly written, poorly sourced and have questionable notability. Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since everything in these four articles came from a reliable source, I wonder what you mean about "verifiability". You didn't have any specific question wrt verifiability, you just made a blanket demand for more sources, never once making it clear what it is that is supposedly "unsourced" and "unverified" in these articles, and obviously not making any effort whatsoever to follow WP:BEFORE and find some sources for yourself (even by following the Interwikilinks that most of these articles had). That you don't like how I creayed these articles is definitely not a valid reason for deletion though. Fram (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I grant you that Dictionary is a notable reference but the way you used it isn't. Wikipedia has basically stopped the use of general references for inline citations, putting it as a note, with no publisher, no page number or other meaningful informaiton about the reference is also weak. I also should not have to hand hold you through the process of creating an article. You are an administrator and you have been here long enough to know. Or at least I thought you had. Additionally as I stated before I searched google and other sources looking for additional material to use and there wasn't any that I could find. Also as noted before I don't think its appropriate to create the article almost verbatim of the original reference. Even if that "Note" is considered a source these articles need a lot of work. Kumioko (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that "Wikipedia has basically stopped" doing this? As for "no page number", I always give the name of the exact entry: considering the fact that it is an alphabetical source, finding it is not very hard for the literate under us. But you are free to suggest any improvements to the Bryan template, just remember that this is hardly the right way to raise such concerns though. But thanks for admitting that these 4 AfDs were totally misguided and put rather incorrectly. Please withdraw them. Fram (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the refernce provided, which is located here you copied the entire paragraph as follows: He first studied under Jan van Nikkelen, and afterwards under Philip van Dyk, of whom he became one of the best scholars, and with whom he stayed seven years at the Hague. He was patronized by the Duke of Hesse, and was appointed historical and portrait painter to the court of Cassel. He possessed a great knowledge of paintings, which he acquired in Germany, Italy, France, and in the school of Philip van Dyk — an acquisition which was of the greatest use in the establishment of the Cassel Gallery. He died at Cassel in 1775. without changing anything. This is simply not acceptable. Kumioko (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please link to any policy or guideline that these articles are violating. Fram (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious, you want me to provide you a policy that states you cannot copy and plaste text from a source without changing it? The problem is even worse than I thought then! Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are arguing that the book is out of copyright you are correct but its still Plagiarism. It still violates Copyright and plagiarism. Shall I go on? As an administrator you really should know this already! Kumioko (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to start an AN threed about my "policy violations", if you think that having started these 4 AfDs wasn't enough of a laugh. feel free to Boomerang yourself with even more silly antics. Fram (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per Fram. Article is plainly not unsourced, and the subject's entry in a "standard reference work" is prima facie evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Article is sourced, and if the notability were questionable, he wouldn't have been in that encyclopedia in the first place. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heinrich Freudweiler[edit]

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

Unsourced biography. Questionable notability. Article creator refused to provide additional sources for verification. Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's in Grove Art Online (Ingrid Sattel Bernardini. "Freudweiler, Heinrich." Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Oxford University Press. Web. 28 Jan. 2013.) which indicates he's likely to be notable. That article offers the following bibliography:

Zürcher Kunstgesellschaft: Katalog der Sammlung von Gemälden und Bildwerken im Kunsthaus (Zurich, 3/1910), pp. 34–5

W. Hugelshofer: Schweizer Kleinmeister (Zurich, 1943), p. 16

E. Gradmann and A. M. Cetto: Schweizer Malerei und Zeichnung im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert (Basle, 1944), pp. 31, 72–3

P. Wescher: Die Romantik in der schweizer Malerei (Frauenfeld, 1947), pp. 92–3

Von Gessner bis Turner: Zeichnungen und Aquarelle von 1750–1850 im Kunsthaus Zürich Graphische Sammlung (exh. cat. by B. von Waldkirch, Zurich, Ksthaus, 1988), pp. 17–19

--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, nominator doesn't understand what "unsourced" means, and hasn't made any effort to find sources obviously, even though this is required before posting an AfD. There are books about this painter,[19] and [20]. Fram (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Fram. Article is plainly not unsourced, and the subject's entry in a "standard reference work" is prima facie evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chatterati (extension)[edit]

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

Software article with only one primary reference fails WP:GNC. No independent sources found on Google news, Google books and HighBeam Research. - Mr X 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:GNG; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete - I am the developer of this software, and would like the wikipedia entry so that users are able to find out more information about it. This is also my first wikipedia article, so my apologies if the stub does not conform to wiki guidelines. As for external sources, I can point out two -

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9927856.htm

http://www.smashpixels.com/chatterati-can-turn-any-webpage-into-a-forum/

The software itself is available at the Chrome store -

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chatterati/gcofjgcjnfblnifodeniggbibpidbhcg?hl=en

Siliconeyes (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that wishing to have a website to promote your product is not an appropriate reason for having an entry in an encyclopedia, see more about this here - the policy that the editors must follow is to find significant independent coverage in order to establish the level of notability required for a subject to qualify for an article, and you can read about this more here. A posting of a press release or similar material on a blog is unlikely to be considered significant coverage, there are a lot of apps created, but quite a low proportion reach the levels of recognition that would render them encyclopedic. I hope that will help you a bit in understanding why people are voting for Delete for this article. ---- _nonsense ferret 15:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – Come back in two years – or how long does it take a business to become the most successful company in AppStore? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of basic or specific notability. Software merely exists. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not now, too soon; maybe after there is reliable sources to establish notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party reliable sources to establish notability; created by an SPA who above describes article's purpose as promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:54, 3 February 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yazgan[edit]

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

Can't verify existance of the village. There is absolutely no sources for the air crash occuring here either. KzKrann (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For both Yazgan and Ezgand I see valid references, such as weather reports and maps. WP:NGEO states that inhabited places are inherently notable. Also, since this is in Tajikistan there's always the possibility that English sources might not be readily available. There is no need for assertion of notability via being nearby anything, nor the place or approximate location of any event. That said, if the claim is not verifiable then it should be removed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google maps confirms the existence of Yazgan/Ezgand, it so meets WP:GEOLAND. I can't seem to find any references for the air crash though. Most English sources state that it occurred in Rasht Valley, but don't mention nearby inhabited locales. Could possibly be Tajik sources out there that support it. Funny ^Pika! 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GEOLAND. This appears to be a populated, legally-recognized place. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real place=gets kept. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As the others have found above, it does appear to be a real village. Confirming places of non-English speaking countries is frequently a challenge like it is here. --Oakshade (talk) 05:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramil Sheriff[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe later, but right now he fails WP:NFOOTBALL spectacularly. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as stated above. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect to his club, if he is mentioned in a club-related article. If he goes on to pursue a senior career, he may become notable, but he seems NN as yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL and no other WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 11:14, 4 February 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 Victorian Flatbush. MBisanz ^talk 22:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Square East, Brooklyn[edit]

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

Article tagged as of doubtful notability and unreferenced for 5 years Boleyn (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but create Victorian Flatbush for context. (I may do that.) A bit of digging confirmed that both this and Beverly Square West, Brooklyn, both created by the same editor and with virtually identical wording, should be at the "Beverley" spelling, as used in their text. There is coverage in the New York Times of the group of neighborhoods, which for added complexity are now usually grouped under Ditmas Park. Some of them have better articles, such as Fiske Terrace; here's a New York Times article clearly explaining it all, with specific coverage of Beverley Square East (and West), here's the Epoch Times, here's more New York Times coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into either Ditmas Park or Victorian Flatbush. This one development isn't notable escept as a part of a larger set of Flatbush developments that now make up the neighborhood of Ditmas Park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitnr (talk • contribs) 15:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Someone moved it to Beverley Square East, Brooklyn and I have now moved the other article to Beverley Square West, Brooklyn to match. I've created Victorian Flatbush and started improving this article with more information and sources; I will similarly expand and reference Beverley Square West. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:11, 20 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 21 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreddeGredde[edit]

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

Subject appears to fail notability guidelines, he is a musician that has gained some mild success on YouTube. He has released one album that hasn't received any commercial success. The entire article has one source, which is just a tracklist for the album. NYSMy talk page 23:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as seen here, the creator of the article appears to have some personal connection with the subject. (COI) NYSMy talk page 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - He has earned quite a reputation but it seems he is best known for only his YouTube work at this time. A Google News search provided results here (Argentine news article talking about his cover song), here (British news article for the same video), here and here (News entries for the video game and theme song medleys). A different search provided a music review for his album here and another different search provided this blog. I watched the theme song medley and will say he is very talented and I'm sure he will have a successful career but there isn't much for an article now. I'm voting delete with no prejudice for a future article or userfying the article. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 13:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

userfy with a recommended delay of, say, six months before resubmission. (Give FG time to accumulate a few more sources). I wonder if WP doesn't need a bit of a rethink on YouTube notability, what with the general move to electronic media? David_FLXD (Talk) 05:31, 14 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 23:08, 14 January 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 00:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since literally anyone can post to YouTube for any reason they feel, lets leave it out of the notability criteria please. Яεñ99 (talk) 13:13, 28 January 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 transwiki to Wiktionary. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mechaieh[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary JetBlast (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Transwiki: I can't see this entry growing to anything beyond this, and perhaps its etymology. Note that the spelling chosen by the article creator is odd; mechaye or mechayeh or mekhaye would be more regular spellings. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 16:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed !vote: Wiktionary would be a good home for this entry. It and its etymology have been covered in depth (but not beyond a dictionary definition): [21]. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:34, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. הסרפד (call me “Hasirpad”) (formerly R——bo) 02:35, 7 January 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, KTC (talk) 00:16, 14 January 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 00:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki: Agree with nom about WP:NOTDIC. Move to Wiktionary. --Mike Agricola (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: Agree with nom, move to Wikionary. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CarNAVi Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. All but one of the sources in the article don't pass WP:RS, and quite a few are press releases. The best source listed is this one, but this isn't really enough coverage to base an article on. This article was previously deleted via PROD and G11, but was recreated. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator, I've searched but everything I can find is either a press release or primary source - it may not help that carNavi throws up lots of generic hits not related to the company, but I'm pretty satisfied that there won't at this time be enough to meet WP:GNG ---- _nonsense ferret 15:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails CORP. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Sugar[edit]

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

After reviewing the references, it's clear that the artist is not notable, as many of the references are from user generated sites such as Youtube and blogs. A quick google search also suggests that the artist has never been nominated for a Grammy, contrary to what the article attempts to convey. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"A quick google search also suggests that the artist has never been nominated for a Grammy, contrary to what the article attempts to convey."

See: 2013 Grammy Awards#Nominations Best Rap Album: Undun - The Roots

Sorry, I missed that, however better references are needed to support that claim, currently the reference cited is a blog, which violates WP:USERG. Notability, though is still a concern unfortunately as there aren't enough WP:RS to verify it.YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 04:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--98.230.222.116 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:59, 15 January 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 00:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undun is nominated for a Grammy^[1], which is a nomination for all producers of the album. Hot Sugar produced the second track, Sleep. 108.48.81.49 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear to be notable even with the Grammy Nomination. He only co-produced one song on the album that was nominated. The target for that nomination should be the album producer. With the lack of any other reliable source, it is likely too soon for this article. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources although he mentioned in conjunction with Kitty Pryde in this Rolling Stone article. Being the co-producer of one track from an album that has been nominated for a Grammy in the absence of any other sort of coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JetNEXUS Solutions[edit]

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

No assertion of notability per WP:CORP; referenced only by company press releases and two product reviews in minor blogs; no significant coverage found online in WP:Reliable sources to establish notability. Company is actually called JetNEXUS, but that article's been salted after three speedy deletions in 2009. It was speedied again at JetNEXUS Ltd, created by Special:Contributions/Jetnexus1 (now blocked for promotional username) less than an hour before this article was created. Proposed deletion contested by article's creator without comment. Altered Walter (talk) 10:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 10:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything on the page is purely factual and is not being used as a marketing or advertising tool. There are several other article included on Wikipedia from the same sector with similar articles such as Kemp Technologies which are still live on Wikipedia. The company is called jetNEXUS Solutions and this is our official trading name. jetNEXUS is merely an abbreviation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Np91 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's an awful lot of primary coverage and press releases, none of which can be used to establish notability, but there's a small amount of (IMHO) reliable sourcing with the Business Computing World article, and also by this article in Computer Weekly, although the fact that both are written by the same person leaves me feeling a bit suspicious about it. The three speedies in 2009 were actually two speedies and an expired PROD - significantly, the speedies were dated earlier than the two sources I've mentioned here. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 14 January 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 00:13, 21 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The few non-primary and non-self-published sources are reviews in business and IT-related publications of back-office IT products. None suggest that this business or its products have made "significant effects" on history, technology, or culture needed to sustain a standalone encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:52, 28 January 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 Yardley of London. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

English Blazer[edit]

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

A few potential self-promotional issues, primarily may not meet WP:notability guidelines. Jackson Peebles (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep with rewrite OR merge to Yardley of London - English Blazer is a brand name for a whole range of fragrances for men that according to website was founded in 1951 (but other sources disagree), and I'm seeing quite a few hits for it on Google News, though nothing very substantial: 1 2. I think most fragrances are best being kept in lists on their creator's pages (or if the pages are already unwieldly, as a separate page, a la (theoretical) List of Chanel perfumes) unless they have the notability of Chanel No. 5 or Joy (perfume). As a fragrance English Blazer's certainly mentioned in the Encyclopaedia of Perfume but not really in great depth (certainly more info than on English Bluebells though). Mabalu (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep OR merge to Yardley of London -- possibly with a disambiguator if kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 19 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 21 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:26, 28 January 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Elyse[edit]

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

All references are to the subject's personal website. No claims or editorial support for notability, other than designing jewelry for a living, sponsoring some events, and having MS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO Nixie9 (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article smacks of self promotion, no coverage outside of her own work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.17.102.92 (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We seem to be looking at different articles. The one I see does have sources other than her website. Perhaps both of you can explain this? - SummerPhD (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the 12 references, 7 are to her site, one is to the top level of a bust.com (not even a specific entry), one is a blog mention of her showing a swimsuit collection, one is to a page of photos, not mentioning the subject, one is a press release stating that she has MS, and the last is a blog posting that she sponsored a salon event. Not one editorial comment in the bunch. I'm sure she is a wonderful person and designer, but there is no editorial coverage to even discuss WP:GNG--Nixie9 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cleaning up the refs as much as I can. The "press" section of her website has piles of links, but I haven't found anything truly substantial about her yet.[22] I'm not sure if there's anything here or not (though the article is clearly COI.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to find her way into a lot of "blurbs" in smaller sources. Drum Magazine, Alternative Press and such. I'm not seeing anything substantial. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - She has numerous short blurbs in smaller sources and an occasional mention in something larger, but I don't see substantial coverage anywhere by her own site. I don't see it passing GNG or any biography guidelines. If there are substantial sources out there, whoever handles her website should be looking for work. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete/comment - Certainly seems to be a weak delete not least as she has no Google News notability, BUT doing some creative searching, she has received quite a bit of attention as a higher-profile MS person. Nice link from the National MS Society ALTHOUGH no author/date. Article on famous MS sufferers published by the Disabled World in 2008 with a minimal bio, predating creation of WP entry - there is a lot of cross-referencing going on though. Also looking up the names of artworks she has created, such as the "Meningitis Dress", brings up a number of interesting links although none are enough for individual notability. However, there is a strong drip-drip-drip mentality here, and my experience with disability/conditions is that those with issues who would not normally pass notability otherwise, tend to receive more attention because of the "hook" that attracts reporters/activists/people looking for role models to hold up. I will have another look later as I suspect some of the sources might be NSFW, but I concur that a weak delete seems to be appropriate based on what can be found at moment. Mabalu (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so THAT'S what the M16 vibrator was about. The Hustler reference is slight but I still doubt it is sufficent, so weak delete vote from before stands. Mabalu (talk) 02:51, 15 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 21 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all the reasons provided above. If some reliable sources can have some meaningful editorial content I would be open to changing my !vote. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:42, 30 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Claire & Esther[edit]

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

Entry for a defunct business which appears to never have been particularly notable even when it was running. Sounds fab, but seems to fail general notability due to zero book/news hits, and very little RS on a quick Google. Biographical information is unreferenced and unverifiable. Someone with brand name as an ID tried to blank the page saying the business was defunct. Mabalu (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, this is one of the thinnest-resulting searches I've seen. The 'official website' is something in Chinese about pianos....TheLongTone (talk) 22:49, 14 January 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 00:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is covered by notable third-party sources including The New York Times News Service [23], DailyCandy [24], plus other fashion sites [25], [26], and so on. Fashion is not my area of expertise but at least the verifiability and notability thresholds appear to be crossed. If the "official" website has gone defunct, the external link should be removed, not the whole article. - Dravecky (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All those sources are very superficial - no indepth coverage and zero critique - they basically read like press release rehashes or advertisements. All they really show is that the business existed once upon a time, not that it made any impact. I did see these, but don't think a bunch of weak PR links are sufficient to base an article on. The first link is basically just photos from the show. It's not really enough to demonstrate any notability, I'm afraid. Mabalu (talk) 23:57, 24 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very little information available about this one, and nothing to denote its notability. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Santiago[edit]

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

Short entry for an American fashion designer/TV producer who doesn't appear to be notable outside his own self-published sources. Didn't see anything on Google News, searching "Bad boy of fashion" (his supposed alter ego) along with "Sammy G" pulls up one page of non-RS. Probably autobiographical and self promotional (the creator's name is "BadboyofFashion"!) but bringing to discussion just in case others can find anything. Mabalu (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject needs more notability than a bunch of minor PA stints on low-scale reality shows and a couple episodes of the old Ricki Lake show to be notable. Nothing notable here when the main search results I find lead much more to a Puerto Rican photographer than the subject of this article. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 14 January 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 00:37, 21 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No coverage or verifiability in reliable sources makes this a problematic BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 31 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sheng Man[edit]

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

Appears to be fictional - as a general who was somewhat cast in a similar role, historically, was referred to as Sheng Xian, not Sheng Man, without the offices stated here for Sheng Man. See Book of Jin, vol. 57 (describing Luo Xian as having defended against an attack by Sheng Xian). The rest of what "Sheng Man" was said to have done appears to be completely made up. While we do have a large number of articles under the category Category:Fictional people of the Three Kingdoms, in this case, the name "Sheng Man" is not even traceable to one of the better known fictional works. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment Upon re-reading of Sheng Xian, I now realize that it refers to a different Sheng Xian than the one that I was thinking of. I have not had enough chance to research into whether this Sheng Xian existed. If he did, I would modify my own nomination to instead advocate for a deletion in the basis of lack of notability (as this latter Sheng Xian/Sheng Man participated in but one battle that was referred to historical records and the extent of participation was unclear) (but if article is not deleted, move to an article name like Sheng Xian (Eastern Wu)). If he did not, I would withdraw the Sheng Man nomination and renominate Sheng Xian for deletion; if the deletion is carried out, then move Sheng Man to Sheng Xian and then renominate it at that time for deletion based on lack of notability. (I'm going to try to that research tonight if not too tired; otherwise, within a day or two.) --Nlu (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further, further comment The other Sheng Xian was real, too. I am staying with my current recommendation to delete as not sufficiently notable, but if there's no consensus on that issue, to then move to Sheng Xian (Eastern Wu). --Nlu (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Based on what I've read so far, there were two Sheng Xians. The first was this Sheng Xian (style name Xiaozhang), who was executed by Sun Quan. (As such, we can infer that this Sheng Xian definitely died before 251, the year of Sun Quan's death.) The second Sheng Xian was the one mentioned in Volume 57 of the Book of Jin (吳聞蜀敗，遣將軍盛憲西上，外托救援，內欲襲憲。), who fought on the Wu side against Luo Xian in 263. (see here) I suspect that Sheng Man might be based on the second Sheng Xian, but I can't find the name "Sheng Man" in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. However, I'm certain that Sheng Man did appear as a character in these games because I play(ed) them and have seen "Sheng Man" in the games before. Could it be that "Sheng Man" is one of Koei's "creations"? After all, many Three Kingdoms persons who are mentioned briefly in historical records, but appear as characters in the games, have their own Wikipedia articles (presumably created by Koei fans), which, in my opinion, are not notable enough to have individual articles on them. (i.e. making an appearance as a character in a game does not mean that the person, fictional or not, is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article) LDS _{contact me} 09:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your theory sounds likely, LDS. It may very well be a game-playability thing to avoid having two Sheng Xians. --Nlu (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete: I scanned chapters 117-120 of Romance of the Three Kingdoms (the chapters in which "Sheng Man" would most probably appear) again and did not manage to find any mention of "Sheng Man". Surprisingly, when I searched for "Luo Xian" in those chapters, I can't find him as well. I'm rather convinced that "Sheng Man" was neither a historical figure nor a fictional character created by Luo Guanzhong. LDS _{contact me} 05:35, 18 January 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 00:50, 21 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 28 January 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 Fashion Star. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Shani[edit]

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

Debatable whether there is any notability beyond failing to make the final three of a marginally notable Project Runway knockoff show. Little beyond non-RS and stuff connected to the show comes up on a Google search in news/books/generally etc, and even then, her mentions don't seem extensive. Seems to fail general notability beyond her stint on the show. Mabalu (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - I recall that we have deleted or merged most 4th runner-ups for such minor reality shows. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 16 January 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 00:48, 21 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not independently notable, despite appearing in a TV series (all press coverage relates to the TV show). So a (selective) merge or redirect. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 28 January 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nirenberg[edit]

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

This is a biographical article without a single reliable, secondary source. The subject appears to be a podiatrist who has spoken at a conference or two, given some lectures, and had some articles published in various venues. I'm sure he's a fine podiatrist, but he doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:57, 22 January 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some press coverage showing he's considered an expert by the media.[27][28][29] But almost nothing on Google Scholar. If we have an article on barefoot/minimalist running, a merge there might be a possibility as an advocate of that. And some of the references in the article, none of which have links to articles, may help. But we don't have enough to save yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROF is for people who are primarily notable as scholars. Subject is a podiatrist who speaks to reporters, and does not appear to have a significant scholarly role which would qualify him to pass WP:PROF#C7. Thus, we default to the GNG/WP:BIO, which he does not pass. Ray^Talk 04:18, 31 January 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) 19:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Leung[edit]

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

Can find no real claims to notability. Reads like a resume for a motivational speaker.

Lots references but most them are self published, prnewswire, blog type referencing. Can not find any reliable sources to establish notability. Ridernyc (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources that establish notability. The sourcing in the article is dreadful and appears to be an attempt at carpet bombing the article with so many references that nobody will question it or check it. I have reviewed the sourcing and the only thing that is close to useable is the TMC interview, but it seems more like a platform for Leung to promote himself. There are a lot of instances where it appears that the reference has been added without actually reading the reference. I've tagged these as vailing verification. The most egregious example is a link to a Rugby article which mentions a player named "Simon Leung" but with no indication that this is the same person, nor does the reference appear to have anything to do with the sentence it is supposed to source. The rest of the refernces are unreliable or primary sources. I've tagged the referencing in the article instead of removing them so other editors can review and evaluate them for themselves. -- Whpq (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and Whpq's meticulous research. I tried too and couldn't find additional sources. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is not spammy but need reference updates. I've also found some coverage about the subject on some press releases and notable Internet Marketing news sites. There are several other people in the same industry containing the same notability and credentials who are currently listed here. 16:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC+8) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.136.218.104 (talk)
- Reply - Press releases do not support notability. If you have some sources other than the ones already listed and discounted in the article, then please present them. Asserting that sources exist prove nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been in Internet marketing for several years, and Simon Leung is ranked among one of the most well-known Internet entrepreneurs in the industry, and almost every big event features him as a speaker. I agree that he belongs here with other Internet marketers who are also here on Wikipedia, just that whoever wrote this did a poor job with the referencing. I will spend some time doing the research to find the appropriate sources for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Internetmarketer (talk • contribs) 07:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to do it quickly. This AfD might be closed soon, and unless the "keep" voters actually put direct links to sources, then the "delete" voters will probably have the winning argument. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as the current sources being a train-wreck as researched by Whpq, I've had a look and can't find anything that relates to this Simon Leung, though there's stuff like this which looks like it's about someone else. That admittedly makes searching for decent sources difficult. In fact, I think the ex-Microsoft Simon Leung is the one who ought to be more likely to get an article over this one. If anything, the article needs to be taken outside and shot. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ritchie and Whpq. This is a wreck of poor sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 4 February 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. If a redirect is desired it can be WP:BOLDly created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philip W. Boesch, Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer. Article reads like a resume. Don't even see a claim to notability. Only reliable source listed is a news article that appears to have called up for a quote.

News search returns only his Wikipedia article, web search returns nothing of substance. Ridernyc (talk) 07:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Under normal circumstances I'd go for a redirect to Marshall v. Marshall, and put the one reliable source that mentions him in there, but the specific article name here is unlikely to be used as a search term. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He's a reasonably well-known litigator, and GNews searches for "Philip Boesch"[30] and "Phil Boesch"[31] will turn up a number of hits about Anna Nicole and other prominent cases where he was involved; but all the ones I could see just mention him in passing, or attribute a quote. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of his cases was notable; the attorney himself is not (WP:NOTINHERITED). TJRC (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:01, 3 February 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) 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Katlynn Simone Smith[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Two claims to notability one is she is working with a producer of questionable notability. The other is a part on a BET sitcom. The statement "While continuing the show for three season" as it appears she was only on the show for five episodes spread over two seasons.

I have found no reliable independent sources to establish notability. Nothing but her own website and PR directories. Ridernyc (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No GNews/Book hits. GHits are social media, blogs, or otherwise not RS. GregJackP Boomer! 13:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to The_Game_(U.S._TV_series)#Main_Cast - I searched Google News for evidence of her Tryst of Fate role but found nothing (probably because it was an indie short) and even found nothing for The Game but I suppose it could be because she only had six episodes. As for her music career, it seems she hasn't released an official album and the article for one of the producers, Cedric Smith, was nominated for deletion. I have no prejudice towards a future article when she is notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 31 January 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Karst[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Has a long list of credits that I think can best be summed up by this on "Cloverfield - New Yorker". He played someone doing something standing next to a really famous person on Entourage but it was not big enough part to be listed anywhere. He plays the "lead villain" in a Van Damme movie.

I can find no mention of him in any independent reliable sources. Lots of PR sites and social networking, but nothing else. Ridernyc (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability not evidenced - his credits are very minor roles. PK T(alk) 16:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a copyright violation? The text matches that at IMDb here although I can't say for sure which was copied from which. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He hasn't received any major roles, anything outside one-time and short jobs or awards. Despite performing multiple detailed Google News searches including the Van Damme film Soldiers in which he acted and performed stunts, I found nothing substantial aside from a minor mention and a press release (which lists this Wikipedia article and may be one of the press releases Ridernyc was referring to). He has two films for this year but one of them doesn't list the character and the other only says "special thanks". I'm not Israeli or fluent with Hebrew so I couldn't translate the two news articles. He may be hired for more future roles after Soldiers so I have no prejudice towards another article. SwisterTwister talk 20:18, 4 February 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) 19:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oseodion Aburime[edit]

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

The subject of this biography article does not appear to be notable. There are no reliably sourced references for the person in the article or available on line. Though the article is a year and a half old, there has only been one substantial editor. All I can find on line about this individual appears to be self published. SchreiberBike (talk) 00:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 01:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not appear to be notable and the article doesn't have any reliable sources. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 08:57, 28 January 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. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BCore100 Microcontroller Board[edit]

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

No evidence of notability other than self-published sources --Guy Macon (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per nom. We've already deleted boards like the Dwengo that do have some community outside their manufacturer. This one seems to be purely manufacturer-based. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 06:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Robotics magazine review mentioned in the article is an independent, reliable-looking source, and is possibly marginally in-depth. It was the only reliable secondary source I could find on the microcontroller board. There are a number of projects out there using the board, but unfortunately none from what Wikipedia would consider reliable sources. At this point, the topic doesn't quite meet notability guidelines. When further reliable sources become available, recreation of this article is reasonable. Mark viking (talk) 06:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough widespread coverage to show the WP:GNG criteria has been meet and this is borderline WP:NOTJARGON. Mkdw ^talk 07:12, 28 January 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) —Theopolisme (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octomom Home Alone[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:MOVIE. — raeky t 05:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (creator's vote). Criteria states: "3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." This won an AVN Award. Ribbet32 (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the note for #3 is "This criterion is secondary." There are no established measure for "major award." It should meet other criteria as well not just #3 per the criteria. — raeky t 06:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but . . . For better or worse, this has received substantial coverage in mainstream sources. (Check out the results of a current GNews search for <Octomom porn>.) [32] I don't think it would bother me, however, if this were merged and redirected to Nadya Suleman#Public profile. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the topic, the film meets the criteria for inclusion as a separate article under WP:NF. Unlike many porn films, the thing has caught the attention of mainstream press. Examples: Globe and Mail [33] NBC News [34] Huffington Post [35][36][37] ABC News [38] E! [39] and there are more, as shown in article's current sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With undeniable regret, but this is well past WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying the GNG, although the suggested redirect would be OK, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per significant coverage. LenaLeonard (talk) 22:02, 31 January 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. Requires additional sourcing, but AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Immanuels Church[edit]

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

No claim to significance other than having more than 2,000 members, fails WP:ORG LightGreenApple _{talk to me} 05:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 05:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 05:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of hits on gnews, if one searches with the apostrophe. In any case, they have 4000 members now - they had 2000 members back in 1996, according to The Washington Times.[40] Besides, looking over past deletion debates, there seems to be a rough consensus that megachurches are notable. St Anselm (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also based on the rough consensus on megachurches. It does need some additional referencing/citations added, but that shouldn't be too difficult. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Javakhk Autonomous Republic[edit]

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

The article is completely based on one source. The source says "Council of Armenian Organizations (NGOs) of Javakhk highlights demands.... this or that". That organization isn't notable, so isn't the proposal they make. The article also incorporates alot of original research. Such as the unsourced population chart and most of the text. Երևանցի ^talk 05:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator --Երևանցի ^talk 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but serious reworking would do well Having looked at (and edited) the page, I would agree that it has issues, notably including a lack of sources. But that by itself doesn't justify deletion- it can be improved. There are other issues to work on, though...--Yalens (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Switch position to delete Kober makes a good point- with only this source, which only mentions a gathering of a mere 30 people, it doesn't seem notable enough. Unless some other (more meaningful) sources show up, it might not be worth a page. --Yalens (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, completely unsourced, blatant OR. The only source cited in the article reports an obscure gathering of some 30 activists and mentions a vague demand of "autonomous territorial status". There is no mention of the "autonomous republic" at all. --Kober^Talk 17:05, 30 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Denationalization of Money[edit]

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

There are some authors so famous that their every book is notable; I do not think this is the case for Hayek, and I do not think there is any evidence that this is one of his most important works. Rather, this article seems to be an excuse for discussing his theories. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While Hayek, being a Nobel-laureate economist, probably the second most famous and important after Keynes, is indeed so famous that his every book is notable, this book stands as worthy of an entry in its own right. It is the origin for an entire school of monetary theory known as Free Banking. The profession of Lawrence White, George Selgin, Richard Timberlake, and Steven Horwitz originates with this text, and all of them have specifically cited it in their own writing. When congressman Ron Paul introduced a bill to "legalize competing currencies" last year, this document was cited as a reason for doing so. Murray Rothbard dedicated an entire section in The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar to attacking The Denationalization of Money, because it is a well-known alternative to what he advocated. Here is an analyst at Real Clear Markets discussing the book. There is also Encyclopedia Brittanica's mention of it. Of the 95,000 references to "the denationalization of money" (with quotes) presented by Google, every single one appears to indeed be discussing this book. These include mention in recent, peer-reviewed publications, and mainstream media articles. There is no doubt this book is, in and of itself, noteworthy. — Kaz (talk) 05:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found a number of references on the idea of "denationalization of money" but only one so far that discusses the book in depth, in the International Journal of Social and Legal Studies. I think discussing his theories in the article is fine if they are a summary from the book itself. The Friedrich Hayek article already has a few sentences about the book, in which it is claimed that the book started the school of thought known as free banking. Is a book notable if its content starts a new school of economic thought? I'm not sure how to think about this one, so no recommendation yet. Mark viking (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to be an important book, with connection to the Bitcoin phenomenon. Author as a Nobel laureate would seem to call for a very low bar for notability, which would seem to be easily cleared by things like THIS JOURNAL ARTICLE in the European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, entitled "On Hayek's denationalization of money, free banking and inflation targeting." There's more out there. Carrite (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know that some would argue over what the threshold standards are for "so notable that all of their works are automatically notable". Some would argue that having a Nobel would give that notability, others wouldn't. I'm honestly glad that I don't have to argue that standard here, as I was easily able to see where this book has been cited in multiple textbooks and various other sources. I'm in the process of adding more things to the article, but I've found enough to show that it passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For encyclopedic purposes, I'm willing to presume that book-length works by Nobel laureates in their field of expertise merit separate entries unless an individual case is made otherwise. "Most important" is not an inclusion criteria here -- we don't limit entries to the "most important" kings of Norway, for example. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't buy the argument that Hayek is "so historically significant" that any of his written works are notable, he's not Albert Einstein or Winston Churchill, not even close. But, Tokyogirl79 has added citations to the article to show that this book is notable. LK (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sadly, this book is emblematic of Hayek's later years. It was the work of an aged has-been whose contribution to serious economic thought, by the time of his Nobel, was decades in the past. By the 1970's, this once-earnest economist was pandering to a depleted constituency of ideologues and fringe theorists for whom he played a central role. The book itself cannot be taken seriously as a work of economic theory, as it does not seriously consider the key issues surrounding its stated subject, e.g. how Hayek's fantasy regime would differ from the one we inhabit in real-world human experience. That having been said, the book continues to be cited by various conspiracy theorists, bloggers, and fringe academics. For that reason, just as Wikipedia has articles on Area 51 and Unicorns, it seems to me that this book qualifies as well. If there are notable published criticisms or discussions of the book, they should be included in the article to provide context. SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:47, 30 January 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) 19:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert xnite Whitney[edit]

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

Article about a "hacker" who allegedly received attention in the media because he posted a video of a murder on his website. While the murder case is notable and received considerable international attention, this ends up being a clear case of WP:BLP1E since the subject does not seem to be notable beyond that single event. The video was also posted in many websites, which further dilutes the claims to notability - notwithstanding a chart showing traffic to his website and claims of being involved with Anonymous. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to suggest a brief mention in the overall Luka Magnotta page, but the big thing is that he's not the only website to post a copy of the video on their website. Lots of websites did. Should we post a list of every website that has been mentioned as uploading it? No, of course not. Bestgore.com got in the media and for obvious reasons, should be mentioned on the website because they had the video first. "Firsties" isn't a claim to notability or even a mention in and of itself, but BG got a ton of mainstream coverage considering their involvement. Other than a very brief mention in Le Figaro, there's nothing out there. Page hits don't count towards notability. It might make it more likely for sites to get coverage, but page hits ultimately do not count towards notability here on Wikipedia. As for the other claims to fame, the only people commenting on it are non-notable blogs that cannot be used to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:44, 30 January 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. OK there was context but snow applies anyway because it was out of scope. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thaumcraft 3 Research Spoiler[edit]

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

This article appears to be a guide to a particular mod of the game Minecraft. But Wikipedia is not a game guide. PROD with identical concern denied by IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Game guides belong to respective wikis. Ezhuks (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A1 - there is no context whatsoever in the article as to what it is about. Also WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTHOWTO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't say there is no context. The title of the article provided me enough context to search the net and find out that Thaumcraft 3 is a mod of Minecraft. Not necessarily a major or notable mod, but that's a different issue. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 28 January 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) Mediran (t • c) 10:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trashy Bags[edit]

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

~~Delete~~ Incubate.

Read this spammy article carefully; also see its history. It was first written, and is sometimes edited, by people associated with the Trashy Bags enterprise. It will forever attract spam from enterprise-associated editors like Prochaz.tom (t·c) and managing director Stuartgold (t·c). The enterprise should discuss its good works and its products for sale on its own site, not here.

Some claim that you can leave it in mainspace and that someone will rescue it. No. It's already been two years, and still nobody has. If you want to keep it, please move it to the Article Incubator. The article is far too spammy to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, and should not remain in mainspace while it awaits a savior. Plus, if you move it to the incubator, a savior is far more likely to arrive.

Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The business is notable, and the solution to the problem of COI editors working on on it is for uninvolved editors to also work on it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia's editors shouldn't have to spend their time fighting the Trashy Bags enterprise's team of COI editors. And in truth, Wikipedia's editors have spent their time on other tasks instead. That's why the article is still so spammy. Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are many things that Wikipedia's editors shouldn't have to do in the abstract, but must do because of the quirks of human nature. Dealing with COI editors is among those things. But one thing that we NEVER ought to do is delete an article about a notable topic because some COI mosquitoes are buzzing about. In addition, I don't see evidence that you've discussed your concerns at all with the two editors you criticized here, either on the article talk page or their own talk pages. That's the first step. In addition, neither editor has touched the page in a year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed my vote, above, to "Incubate". Do you agree with the perspective I shared above? (That, after two years of no improvement, the page should be kicked out of mainspace. If fixed, it can return.) Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 03:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I agree with the nominator's concern over COI, the reality is that the notability of a subject is not affected by who is creating or editing its article. We have ways of dealing with advert-like language, puffery, undue weight, etc. And COI itself. This passes WP:ORG as far as I'm concerned. As a side note, conflict of interest issues are no different from poor spelling, grammar or crappy structure when determining when to bring an article to AFD - they shouldn't be factors at all. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I just changed my vote to "Incubate". Are you willing to? Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, incubation is an alternative to deletion. That's not the likely outcome here. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, oppose incubation. The topic is notable, and the article should stay in main space. If you think that the article is too spammy, Unforgettableid, then please feel free to despamify it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am unfortunately too busy. Surely you too agree the article is too spammy? If so — do you have time to despamify it? :) Unforgettableid (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator has rightly pointed out that at least two people involved with the organisation have been heavily involved in editing the article (something I missed earlier), and also that the article is currently in a fairly lousy state. However, that doesn't change the fact that the organisation is unequivocally notable according to WP:GNG even based on the coverage in reliable sources already listed in the article. Does it deserve to be noted by these major independent reliable sources with such ease? Maybe not, but it has been so noted, it is notable, that's all there is to it. (Full disclosure - as part of my activities helping new editors, I either helped the unpaid COI guy upload the company logo, or I uploaded it for him. I might also have advised him on how to format refs, or something like that.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You agree that the article is in lousy condition. Did you consider voting like me (to incubate)? Cheers, --Unforgettableid (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did consider that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

I toned parts of the article down somewhat, and added Template:Cleanup-spam and Template:Advert to other parts after looking at Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles which suggests rewriting. The sections about the MTV and soccer team publicity stunts can possibly be deleted. When I looked at a few old revisions, I didn't notice those tags. I may be missing something—were they ever there? The article might have received a quicker de-spamming if they were.

Wikipedia's editors shouldn't have to spend their time fighting the Trashy Bags enterprise's team of COI editors.

I looked at User_talk:Aptroost and there was one warning for spamming, more than two years ago. It appears that Aptroost last edited the article in July, and the edits since then don't appear spammy. I think the Trashy Bags promoters are less aggressive (at least on Wikipedia) than you imply. If they were, they could be dealt with through administrative actions such as the block list or article protection.

24.24.214.15 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 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. A "Good Faith" award to Bob for nominating his own article in good faith; that takes integrity, and were that more Wikipedia editors like him. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number Enigmas[edit]

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

One of the earliest articles I created, which I now realize is completely non-notable--I can't find any sources at all to use as refs for this page. BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 04:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a number of user reviews, but none that could be considered reliable independent sources. I agree, this book falls below notability guidelines and the article should be deleted. Mark viking (talk) 04:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per article creator's own observation that it is not notable. I commend Bob for nominating the article. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article is not notable because there aren't any reliable sources available. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasonable request of article creator, although there has been somewhat too much activity since creation for a G7 speedy deletion. There are no sources to be found, and worldcat shows this as being held in only a single-digit number of libraries. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NBOOK and the final nail in the coffin is the creator's nomination. Mkdw ^talk 11:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Managing Risks in Cloud Computing[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Wikipedia is not a place to publish synthesis and/or original research. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article reads like a OR research paper (see WP:NOTJOURNAL), and the topic is unlikely to generate an encyclopedic article. — daranz [ t ] 17:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a lot of potentially good information in this article, but I agree that this looks like original research in the form of synthesis of disparate sources (see WP:SYNTH for details). Of the general references mentioned, only the Feng paper superficially appears to deal with risk in the context of cloud computing. If reliable sources can be found that discuss in depth managing risk in cloud computing, recreating the article based on those sources would be reasonable. --Mark viking (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Crawford[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Please note: that there was a previous AFD for this title but it seems the previous article was about another person who happened to have the same name.

I started looking at this with an eye toward fixing it up, and came to the conclusion that it is probably not worth the effort. Most of the article is blatantly about how great this guy and his company are, the sources are either the company itself or obvious reprints of PR materials, indeed two of the sources are word-for-word identical. I don't think this person is notable in the Wikiepdia sense of the word, and even if he was this article is hopelessly spammy, having been created by a user with an obvious conflict of interest. I have tried to counsel them about it but they seem convinced that the obvious promotion in this article is actually neutral, objective reporting. Much of the article is more about the programs he invented or whatever than about the actual person who is supposedly the subject, contributing to the appearance that this is mainly intended to promote these services, as opposed to being a neutral article on a notable subject. There may be a case, if the claims in the article are true, for an article on these programs, but the guy behind them does not seem to be the focus of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite some clean up the article is still promotional, reading like an unsourced CV about Crawford, as well as plugs for his companies. The artilce is evidently written by someone associated with his company, SOMA Get Fit. I can't see any significant secondary coverage about Crawford to enable him to meet WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone is a little confused. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No not in the slightest he played for a least 4 different clubs hence the Sportspeople & Football delsorts. Cheers ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This does seem to feel self-written, promotional material and the fact that Somagetfit wrote much of it, it does feel like a confict of interest here. That and the fact it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the notability test. Once the spam, promotional and CV material is removed there's nothing left to suggest this individual should be included in WP. QuiteUnusual ^TalkQu 10:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable promotional spam. GregJackP Boomer! 13:31, 31 January 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) 19:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Tatras International[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable podcaster that has been tagged for lack of WP:RS for four years now. Promises have long been made that the WP:RS are going to appear, but they haven't appeared, and I can't find any. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Qworty (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried looking for non-primary sources which give substantial coverage to the station and came up empty. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 13:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous deletion debate noted that actually having been a licenced radio station was sufficient for notability - is this criterion in policy? - David Gerard (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any policy specifically addressing this point. However, I did turn up the essay Wikipedia:Notability (media) which argues that having a licence isn't sufficient to be notable; it gives many examples of licensed stations which are non-notable. The general notability criterion for radio stations it gives is "either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." —Psychonaut (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Broadcasting says it all PN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - In that case, delete barring a sudden flood of RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nothing in sk.wikipedia, fwiw (though that's a 180,000 article Wikipedia) - David Gerard (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, but incidentally - is this the same RTI of 'RTI Investigates Wikipedia' RTI user ---- _nonsense ferret 15:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The owner of RTI is also the CEO of Train2Game, the subject of the article which it's "investigating". —Psychonaut (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - well nonsenseferret you just had to go and open your big mouth didn't you, best regards :) ---- _nonsense ferret 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Psychonaut, I have asked in another place for your evidence re the CEO of Train2Game, why do you continue to make such claims without following WP procedures and supporting your claim. the easy way would be to get a ref from the UK's Companies House. regards RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [41] - as you well know I had already noted on Talk:Train2Game - David Gerard (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The company check does not reference this SRO and further there is no evidence of who is the CEO of Train2Game being put forward. I am beginning to wonder if all of this is purely for other means and in fact has nothing to do with anything reliable. No offense meant to sensible people. WP states you should reference things, where are your references for the "SRO" and the "CEO" of Train2Game? I know why they fail to appear - you have none. Have a good evening and let's not forget there is a real world outside with hard facts that only need conversation to verify them. Regards RTI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.42.254 (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still not signing your posts I see. Your refusal to comply with Wikipedia's standards in such a small way does not bode well.

Re: "without following WP procedures", please provide the exact time and page where this happened and exactly which "WP procedure" (actually, we have guidelines and policies, like the one about signing your posts) you believe was violated. If you are not able to provide those two things, please stop making unfounded accusations. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Somehow, I got here via Train2Game. Anyway, the page fails to provide any notability, and no WP:RS can be found. Zappa O Mati 04:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 31 January 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) 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players of Latin American descent[edit]

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

Overly broad to the point of being a random collection of information, and despite that still has no content. The list cannot decide what its scope is - the title is "of Latin American descent", but according to the header, it includes Spain, Portugal, "Portuguese America" (which has been called Brazil for over 200 years) and "Hispanic America" which is an old term for all of Central and South America (what is now considered Latin America). None of the players are directly from any of those countries as far as what the nationalities indicate (all American or Canadian), and almost all of them are of mixed descent. All of the retired players save one, and six of the 10 actives, are mixed Portuguese. They should therefore not be on this list, because neither Portugal nor Brazil consider themselves to be in Latin America. That leaves five people total for the list. I can't dig it out because of the redirect, but apparently this used to be List_of_ice_hockey_players_of_Latino_descent and was AfDed as such. MSJapan (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like other lists of its type, it's vaguely defined, and has no intrinsic notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is very rare to see any NHL players who are Latin American descent in the White-dominated sport. Marc87 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Singling them out for being different doesn't help with diversity. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 24 January 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. There is nothing in this article that suggests that, say, Canadian players of Portuguese descent were ever considered to be significantly different from Canadian players of other European descents, or that they were subjected to distinct treatment in the sport on account of their ethnicity. Maybe they were, and I don't mean to minimize any prejudice they may have experienced. But I've never seen an article like this Sports Illustrated article about black players in the NHL, but written instead about Portuguese players in the league. In any event, Portuguese-Canadians are not of Latin American descent, because Portugal is in Europe, not Latin America. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep NHL players of Latin American descent are rare. Keep conditional tough, unless no other primary sources can be found; could not find any so far.Editor400 (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck sockpuppet vote. See here. MSJapan (talk) 15:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- They are so rare, in fact, that less than one-third of the players on this List of ice hockey players of Latin American descent are actually of Latin American descent. (Most of them are of Iberian European descent.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, there is no intrinsic notability to being a hockey player with random ancestry. Especially in a North American (especially Canadian) dominated sport where our very culture is built on immigration. The simple truth is most of these players are viewed as being "Canadian" or "American", not "Portugese-Canadian". Also, as noted, the fact that the list needs to completely break the definition of "Latin America" to pad itself is a further sign of non-notability. Reso lute 15:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbritary and misleading list. Secret ^account 20:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reso makes the case very, very well; I don't believe I can explain it any better than he has. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:24, 4 February 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. Jujutacular (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians in Italy[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources or establish its notability. I'm sure there happen to be notable Ukrainians living in Italy, but the same argument could be made to create Canadians in Monaco or Trinidadians in Benin without sources. Andrew³²⁷ 04:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 15:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The Ukrainians community is a large community in Italy and has a notable impact in italian society, many ukrainians woman work in Italy as home assistants for eldery people.User:Lucifero4 2013-01-13 22:15:54‎
Delete - Sub-stub with no references, no claim of notability, containing a single (unsourced) "fact". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I live in Italy and I can tell you the ukrainan immigration in Italy is a notable, the has to be improved but not deleted.User:Lucifero4 2013-01-15 21:10:54‎
Redirect' To Ukrainian diaspora. Ryan Vesey 14:21, 14 January 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 02:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifero4's statement above is, of course, the unsupported claim of a person with a pseudonym on an open WWW discussion. So let's have a university fellow instead. In this case, it's a postdoctoral fellow in the University of Helsinki who studies migration.
Ukrainian migration to Italy skyrocketed at the turn of the millennium. […] Ukrainians are the fifth largest imigrant group in Italy, […] Both [Ukrainian and Polish immigrants] are gendered populations.
— Näre 2012, p. 72
So the university researcher supports the claims of the pseudonymous person on the open WWW discussion, even the thesis that these people are disproportionately women. There's clearly a lot more to be written here, from that source alone, and it's a shame that there's been about twenty times as much prose devoted to an AFD discussion as was ever in the article. Giuggiola90, could you please not give Wikipedia articles that are barely above being single, context-free, factoids?
- Näre, Lena (2012). "The informal economy of paid domestic work: Ukrainian and Polish migrants in Naples". In Sciortino, Giuseppe; Bommes, Michael (eds.). Foggy Social Structures: Irregular Migration, European Labour Markets and the Welfare State. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789089643414.
Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My take on an article like this is that while I understand that AfD is not cleanup, there's clearly not enough here for an article, even if the topic is notable. As such, it should be deleted/redirected or userfied (short of WP:HEY, which probably wouldn't be too hard if someone had the time and the sources) until an article that gives enough context that the reader is left with some level of understanding of the topic is created. Ryan Vesey 02:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - People who cut factoids out of other articles, in this case Italy#Ethnic groups, and create almost content-free substubs just to make bluelinks in "X in Y" templates, in this case Template:Immigration to Italy, certainly aren't actually helping the project. And there's always the "better a redlink than this" argument, which posits that at least a redlink leads editors to know that there isn't real content at the title yet. Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain the WWW by the way? Ryan Vesey 02:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You've never encountered it being given its proper name: the World Wide Web? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A useful link in English http://www.genderstudies.info/english/eng_text16.php
Then written in Italian a report of ISTAT about forgeiners in Italy.233000 ukrainans in Italy 80% are woman.https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:A_AX6tb73n0J:www.istat.it/it/files/2012/07/Statistica-report-Permessi-di-soggiorno.pdf?title%3DI%2Bcittadini%2Bnon%2Bcomunitari%2Bsoggiornanti%2B-%2B25%252Flug%252F2012%2B-%2BTesto%2Bintegrale.pdf+ministero+degli+interni+ucraina+presenze&hl=it&gl=it&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgJRchD-ZxISWK43huKLFDU-hfHKXFe7HhNoY8nK-YXlixIIhf3ywtXASp45ILzzESCs0DBq_KDEpPbUZC0qlIqE6rpsPI9jzA0TwgYnnT8H2c2DXJSiiqZROJdHrL7C86Dio4N&sig=AHIEtbR52zvZklsFbWUm0BkAP0MLRyt9Lw User:Lucifero4

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article to a stub-worthy class and provided references. It's time to remove the "delete" tag from the page. If someone is interested in expanding the article further, you are welcome to improve on my work.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Immigration to Italy Both articles are not that long and all the information here can easily be added there. Honestly, that article looks like a mere duplication of Italy#Ethnic groups, so if no new information is put there, I will redirect it and the article is this AfD looks like WP:FANCRUFT since very few wound be interested in a specific group of people migrating to another country. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A search suggests that Ukranian emigration to Italy is a notable topic, even if this article needed further improvement. See, e.g., Ukrainian Migration to Italy, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies (Volume 6, Issue 3, 2008). Not unlike bilateral-relations articles, not every combination of two countries will be notable, but this one appears to be.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:18, 5 February 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.