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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kansuiryu Karate[edit]

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

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

Article has been tagged as unsourced since 2008 and my search found no WP:SIGCOV or anything to show this style meets WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see that this style meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Since WP:MANOTE is but an essay, whether the subject meets it or not is irrelevant to any deletion discussion. That leaves the GNG, and given that no sources are provided except for websites of the style, it fails that going away. Ravenswing 08:03, 25 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wing[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor leaguer who has retired. Wing never actually played in NPB, nor did he have anything particularly noteworthy in his career which could pass GNG. Wizardman 23:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 00:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing noteworthy here. Spanneraol (talk) 16:09, 24 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Air Canada Flight 875[edit]

Air Canada Flight 875 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing notable happened here. There were no injuries or fatalities, the plane number was not retired - all in all, this is just a minor hiccup, not an incident. Fails WP:EVENT and also doesn't really meet WP:AIRCRASH. Beerest355 Talk 23:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Comment Do keep in mind that WP:AIRCRASH is not a Wikipedia policy, but a guideline for the participants of WikiProject Aviation on articles covering Airplane crashes. It alone should not be the basis for an AfD. However, I cannot find any sufficient sources or coverage on this incident to pass WP:N or WP:EVENT outside the investigation report (here: http://www.fss.aero/accident-reports/dvdfiles/CA/2002-06-14-CA.pdf) and this coverage is WP:ROUTINE, so I would say delete. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yeah, I'm aware of that. That's why I put WP:EVENT first. Beerest355 Talk 00:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC
  • WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Not notable....William 00:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, also per WP:NOTNEWS. Tailstrikes occur frequently, and this article reads like a random news item.--FoxyOrange (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable just a bad day at the office. MilborneOne (talk) 18:24, 20 June 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 Abyssinian Creole. SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Beast (album)[edit]

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

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

Album does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 17. Snotbot  t • c »  23:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Apparent lack of coverage by reliable third party sources. Can't see where is passes NALBUMS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allyn Rachel[edit]

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

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

No notability Lady Lotus (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've replaced 2 primary youtube cites with this WP:42 source [1]. Both the NY Post and AdAge articles imply that the subject is well-known to much of the American TV-watching public even if her name might not be. Kilopi (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But look at what she's known for - commercials. Since when is wikipedia a place to give commercial actors notability? Lady Lotus (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stephanie Courtney? Tom Bodett? - Like Ms. Rachel, they've done a few other things too, but it's the commercials that make them notable. Kilopi (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea but look at the amount of work that Stephanie Courtney has under her belt while Allyn Rachel has been in 2 shows, one as a bridal extra and 4 episodes of weeds? And Tom Bodett has 8 books? How can you even compare the two to Rachel? Lady Lotus (talk) 20:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep she is notable because she passes the general notability guidelines, with her coverage in the New York Post and elsewhere. When you have an article in a major newspaper titled "Girl interrupting Actress Allyn Rachel steals the show — during commercial breaks from your favorite series", and all about the actress, then that is significant coverage in a reliable source. Had other things in her career as well besides commercials [2], but doesn't matter since she meets the WP:GNG already. Dream Focus 17:43, 19 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Jahns[edit]

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

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

No notability Lady Lotus (talk) 22:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG.  Brendon is here 09:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG, No indicators of notability. Finnegas (talk) 12:44, 23 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Sánchez (baseball)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable minor league player, no good reliable sources. Wizardman 22:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 00:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing noteworthy here. Spanneraol (talk) 16:09, 24 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lewis (American football)[edit]

Jeremy Lewis (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Has not played at the professional level and also his college career doesn't appear notable. Article fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Armchair QB (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Armchair QB (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the one reference link is busted. College offensive linemen are normally not notable and this one does not seem to be an exception. I can find no threshold of notability that the subject meets at this time. No prejudice to re-create should the individual rise to notability in the future, or if additional sources are found to show notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I did find a couple articles about him from the time period before he started playing at the college level (here and here), but coverage of a player's high school career is usually not enough to pass WP:NSPORTS. As Paul noted above, linemen generally don't get a lot of feature coverage. If someone finds substantive coverage of Lewis in the mainstream media, I'm willing to reconsider, but it's a delete for now. Cbl62 (talk) 04:15, 23 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE GIKI Chapter[edit]

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

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

This article fails WP:GNG. This appears to be a student chapter of IEEE at a specific school with no sources of notability. All of the links provided are to wikipedia pages, IEEE pages, or ones related to the school. User226 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Its just a student branch of a local section of an organisation and is not notable in its own right. Its also poorly sourced and written in a promotional tone.Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication this sub-unit of the IEEE is notable on its own. The sourcing in the article is primary, and I could find no independent coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 21 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rephco Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:CORP. I couldn't turn up any reliable third-party information on this company, at all, but my searching skills have been lacking recently. Apparently this article was declined at AfC so the article creator decided to go ahead and move it to mainspace anyways. TKK ^{bark !} 21:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I also could find no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. All I could find are directory listings, and promotional material and press releases from the company itself.. Does not meet any of our notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It appears to be self promotion. --Stormbay (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. I failed to find any sources. If it does exist it is very small, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is not enough proof of notability, and the article has too few sources. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:38, 18 June 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 Withdrawn (WP:NAC) JJ98 (Talk) 19:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2[edit]

The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFF. No release date or announcement. JJ98 (Talk) 19:26, 17 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IC reverse design[edit]

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

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

This article appears to be written for advertising purposes. See the Talk:IC_reverse_design Page. It also appears to be duplicate content that is covered under Reverse_engineering and does not require its own article. User226 17:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was not sure if this met section G11 for speedy deletion. It may very well be a speedy delete. User226 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete speedy or not, it appears to be only a link to a company that pirates intellectual property. Nothing to merge. Maybe lawyers' opinion needed on if this kind of thing could even lead to a lawsuit, which would certainly justify a speedy. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is badly translated material from what appears to be a Chinese wiki. From a topic standpoint, we already cover the material in reverse engineering. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 21 June 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) czar · · 17:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verb T[edit]

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

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

I was astounded to discover this article had been here since 2008. It is unformatted and written in an informal, promotional tone more suited to PR materials than an encyclopedia. Of course, those are problems that can be fixed by simple editing. The utter lack of reliable sources is a more serious problem. I found pretty much nothing about this person, and it seems nobody else has either despite the article being here for five years. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I must agree with the nom. I have not been able to find much information about this person other than the standard promotional material and standard album reviews. The lack of sources after this length of time as an article is also a sign of lack of notability. User226 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that the article is crap at the moment - it looks to be a close paraphrasing of this from his label's site. As we know though, that isn't in itself a reason to delete the article. I should admit that as a fan I am slightly biased with regards to UK Hip Hop, but I think I can demonstrate that WP:NMUSIC is just met. There isn't any coverage in mainstream media, but Verb T has been around for years and there are quite a lot of things in magazines e.g. this, this, this, this, this and UKHH.com and rapnews.co.uk which used to be the go-to places for UKHH information. The Four Owls are probably the most well known UKHH group ever (I've never got round to writing an article, but it would be easy) as this shows. I admit these sources aren't the best in the world, but for more obscure music genres they're all that there is. Hopefully they show that while he's by no means a household name, he isn't a complete nobody either, and that we could write a neutral article about him. SmartSE (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep per SmartSE; I think there's just about enough to scrape WP:MUSICBIO. Needs a rewrite, though. — sparklism ^hey! 07:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I agree there's enough to scrape by for notability. The version at the time of nomination is a a slightly reworded copy of his artis's page as noted above. That's a copyvio and I've swapped out the main text with material from a non-copyvio version in the article history. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muthu Maldini[edit]

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

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

Not referenced and self created (conflict of interest) Anshuk (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not even a claim to notability: the subject has been a student and has high hopes for the future, er that seems to be it. I have flagged speedy A7. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 17 June 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 Inspector Gadget. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Claw[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Not independently notable from Inspector Gadget; Google search does not result in significant coverage or reliable info. Article consisting of mostly in-universe information and trivia. Mostly copy & paste/cruft additions from tv show article. AldezD (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the Inspector Gadget article, no out-of-universe notability established. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Inspector Gadget, a search for independent coverage didn't yield anything significant to warrant a stand-alone article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. JJ98 (Talk) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Inspector Gadget per above. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Inspector Gadget, notability independent of the franchise not established. Although the article has a lot of stuff in it, there's not enough sourced content to warrant a merge. Zad68 15:13, 19 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelfish (software)[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)).

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

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

Related AFD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urchin Software Corporation

no indication of WP:notability. Disputed prod. Since the prod, a couple of references have been added - A story about Google Urchin that mentions it as an alternative and a Spanish blog post. Google searches are not showing much better sources available. Some google groups coverage, some blog coverage and some directory type listings. No significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable and for reasons stated in the AfD. Tyros1972 Talk 17:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not shown as notable (WP:PRODUCT). User226 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like notable software to me - the WHIR reference is legit. Ooni (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Onni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Its not significant coverage - its just a quote from the company tagged on to a story about google urchin. noq (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see no coverage in reliable sources and no demonstration of notability. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:30, 18 June 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) czar · · 17:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bahar Dutt[edit]

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

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

not that notable.Article fails WP:AnyBIO. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not that notable, she is somewhat notable, right? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: The second I saw Bahar's name, I knew the article would be a keeper. Her sister Barkha Dutt, of course, is one of India's most famous female journalists, and in the nominator's defense, the original lead was written to make it seem as if her sister's notability was transferable to Bahar. The article was also at stub status. However, Bahar is an award-winning journalist. She has multiple awards in Indian journalism and in environmental journalism. Her biggest achievement has been raising the profile of environmental conservation in India. I've added fresh sources for her bio, journalism and awards. She definitely passes WP:Anybio, and notability standards for journalists, and also WP:Sigcov. However, her article needs to be expanded beyond stub status. Crtew (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Environmentalist and journalist very well noted for her work through various awards. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Crtew and Dharmadhyaksha. Martin451 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A notable journalist, I do not see any valid reasons to delete this article. -sarvajna (talk) 02:26, 19 June 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) czar · · 17:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yotam Solomon[edit]

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

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

Pure promotion,: article mostly devoted to name-dropping, references all either mentions or PR If I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the AfD. . DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep VERY messy article, full of WP:PEACOCK, but I think he easily passes WP:GNG. Receiving coverage in Vogue UK and US is pretty notable for a fashion designer, plus I see quite a number of articles on him, interviews, etc. I'm going to guess the article was created following his appearance on America's Next Top Model. For someone who mainly works on made-to-order and custom orders, he's received quite a lot of coverage considering this - many such designers work under the radar. The article should be rewritten/cropped down to cut a lot of the waffle and promo, but I think he's notable and will have to have a more in-depth search when I've a bit more time as he sounds REALLY interesting! Mabalu (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This Vogue UK article is devoted to him, and describes him as a "Former violin prodigy in Austria, Fashion Institute of Design and Merchandising whiz kid in Los Angeles, and designer extraordinaire". This Haaeretz article is devoted to him, as is this article. None of those are mere "mentions", and all three are to RSs. And there are a number of other such articles that appear in searches in both English and Hebrew. Meets GNG.Epeefleche (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I also found this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 21 June 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 Intercontinental Champions' Supercup. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales[edit]

Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because it is the same tournament as Intercontinental Champions' Supercup--this page was created on 8 August 2008 while Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales was created on 1 September 2011. The article titles are virtually the same: Intercontinental Champions' Supercup is the literal translation of Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales. In addition, CONMEBOL (pg. 112-113) lists only one valid competition under this name and not two as RSSSF mistakenly has. MicroX (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two articles, not sure which is the 'correct' name, that's probably an issue for the article talk page. --MicroX (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)GiantSnowman 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to initially merge them but there is nothing to merge. Intercontinental Champions' Supercup has all the information it needs and only needs some sources. Supercopa de Campeones Intercontinentales has the 1968 and 1969 editions listed but the 1968 information has already been added to 1968 Intercontinental Supercup and the 1969 information is already saved in my sandbox for when the time comes to create 1969 Intercontinental Supercup. --MicroX (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As a possible search term. The main article with the English name needs references. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - Agree with Walls of Jericho. A redirect would be better. --MicroX (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - two articles on the same subject should be merged, but as there isn't anything to merge we should have a redirect instead. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge 1969 section into the 1969 Intercontinental Supercup and then redirect. NickSt (talk) 11:06, 20 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General list of Roman emperors[edit]

General list of Roman emperors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We have lists already covering the topic at List of Roman emperors and List of Byzantine emperors, both of which are more fully developed. The phrase "general list" fails to designate the scope of the list in a way that would distinguish it from either of those two lists; it particularly creates undue confusion with List of Roman emperors. This list serves no purpose, and is a mere duplication of content. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously up for deletion under a former name: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concise List of Roman Emperors. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looking quickly at the history of these pages and their Talk pages, it seems to have first been created because there was a dispute over using a table format in the List of Roman Emperors page and how much information to include in that table. That is ancient history now as they use similar table formats. The original deletion vote occurred immediately after this page was created, and hence the most common 'keep' vote was that the new page was a work-in-progress, so should not be deleted. They didn't address whether having duplicate lists, a List and a Concise List, was worthwhile. (The second most common 'keep' vote I see is to keep the List and not the Concise List and I suspect that these were misinterpreted as keep votes for the page being challenged.) After surviving that vote there was little activity until about a year ago when an editor decided there should be a list that includes both east and west, and after suggesting it on List, decided instead to expand Concise List, which was then renamed. All this history aside, looking at them now, they are duplicates. The General List is not easier to follow as a result of leaving out birth and death details and full name: fundamentally this list is the same, except that it combines the East and West. There is no need for this duplication, and the more detailed lists are the ones to keep. Agricolae (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Content fork. It simply duplicates the information on the other two lists, to no advantage. The other two lists are superior in quality. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article was only ever there to mollify the sensibilities of those who consider the List of Roman emperors to be too detailed to qualify as a list. JohnArmagh (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mollify the sensibilities" is a phrase to treasure for the vast truth it contains. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as redundant.  davidiad { t } 12:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Paul August ☎ 13:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The otehr two articles deal with the matter much better. My only query is whether the page should not be retained as a dabpage for mthe otehr two articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems unlikely that anyone would search for "general list" instead of "list", so I don't see it as a useful dab title. List of Roman emperors has a hatnote to List of Byzantine emperors. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither. Regardless of the origin of the two articles, this is not quite the simple duplication it appears to be. The main article contains only those emperors deemed 'legitimate': this is based on the emperors usually given in regnal lists in books (the whole question of legitimacy is a bit of a fudge, but that's a separate issue). The 'general' list used to be called 'concise', and contains anyone who ever claimed the emperorship, ie usurpers, minor emperors, and so on. These emperors do not belong on the main list, since they were clearly not the "true" emperors, and often, very little is known about them - quite a few are only known from coin finds. But it does make sense to list them somewhere -- many of them have their own articles -- and that's where the 'concise/general' list was supposed to come in. However, I completely agree that it's not very good, doesn't make its point clear, and should be deleted -- in it's current form. The question is...what to do with the extra content? Any thoughts?  M.F.B.T.  ^{Yes, Minister?} 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

emperors usually given in regnal lists in books: If they aren't generally recognized as emperors, and don't share an easy label, perhaps these figures aren't amenable to a list format. Their historical role might require a discursive treatment. But there are, for instance, usurper lists floating around, such as the oddly named Gallienus usurpers. For comparison, we have List of Roman consuls designate, for those who were elected but prevented by circumstances by serving, and List of undated Roman consuls, who are known by name but can't be securely placed in the chronological List of Roman consuls. Both these have a clearly defined scope. It's unclear in the General list of Roman emperors what the names in italics might mean: these include Pertinax and Didianus Julianus, who appear also on List of Roman emperors; at other points, the italics seem to indicate usurpers. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting on the article is hopelessly wrong - it did used to be usurpers in italics, no idea what they are supposed to mean now. As long as we keep a list of the emperors/usurpers who aren't on the main list somewhere (even if it's just on my page), while we figure out what to do with them, then I'm happy for the general list to be Deleted.  M.F.B.T.  ^{Yes, Minister?} 18:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About emperors, if they're actually emperors they belong on the main list; but this is not always synonymous with soldiers declaring an imperator. I'm not so familiar with the details of 3rd-century succession, when most of these issues arise (and the role of the Senate in legitimizing emperors declines), but I wonder whether that's the sticking point: an acclamation of imperator by the soldiers, but no other formal recognition of a potential usurper. A certain number of emperors whose legitimacy is recognized came to power through "usurpation" or a version of it, so that alone is not a test of legitimacy. Could there be a list of usurpers acclaimed as emperor by no one other than the soldiers under their command, or some such? Since I nominated for deletion, I suppose I have a responsibility to see what would be left if we removed all the figures who appear on List of Roman emperors. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have List of Roman usurpers and List of Byzantine usurpers, which both appear to be pretty near exhaustive. Srnec (talk) 06:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The general list can be checked against those lists, and any usurpers moved there who aren't already represented. Cynwolfe (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed probably solve the issue. It does need re-writing though - see below. M.F.B.T.  ^{Yes, Minister?} 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - The other lists referred to are the ones that should be deleted as they are fatally compromised by a a lack of neutral POV in their structure. The pages are protected by trolls who insist on using wikipedia to promote their personal views on topics like the nomenclature of the medieval empire (Byzantine or Roman) and the nature of legitimacy. These folks have cooked their opinions into the structure of the articles, effectively end-running wiki's requirements to cite sources and provide balance. (Which is wise since their positions are consistent with 18th and 19th century conventions but not with contemporary scholarship.) The imperative for neutrality in wiki makes it a wiser course to keep and expand this article and delete the other twoTheCormac (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to name the editors you're characterizing as trolls? And I don't see how neutrality applies: there are an infinite number of books from scholarly presses such as Oxford and Cambridge, published from 1970 to the present, that follow the conventions of periodization reflected by the constructs "Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire". Neutrality means reflecting the weight of scholarship as it exists. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how an article can be fatally compromised to the point of deletion. Surely it can just be re-written? The point is, the usurper articles are more suitable topics than 'general list of roman emperors', which is just confusing. The fact that they may currently be non-NPOV does not mean that general list roman emperors should be kept. You are conflating two different issues. I fully intend to re-write the Roman usurper article to reflect the on-going discussions here - in fact, I have already started. So whether those articles are bad or not should not directly affect the discussion here (especially since the general list is also badly written.  M.F.B.T.  ^{Yes, Minister?} 18:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're working on that, Minister, I won't look further into comparing the two lists. I too fail to see what the Roman/Byzantine designations have to do with checking General list of Roman emperors against List of Roman usurpers to make sure the former doesn't contain info lacked by the latter. Re: TheCormac's comment, I would object to our inventing our own tests of legitimacy, as a form of OR. Legitimate emperors are those recognized as such by RS. Periodization is a just a convenience for organizing content into comprehensible chunks. It isn't that hard to look at books from the last 30 years with a title containing the phrase "Roman Empire" and to compare their periodization to those that contain the phrase "Byzantine Empire". These universally recognize an overlap and shared history from the founding of Constantinople through the Justinian dynasty, while viewing the midsections of the two periods as distinct. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:15, 23 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Master Toddy's Tuff Girls[edit]

Master Toddy's Tuff Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article about a TV show with no WP:SIGCOV. It lacks independent sources and doesn't seem to meet any notability standards. I thought of redirecting to Master Toddy, but that article also lacks good sources and combining two bad articles doesn't make a good article. Jakejr (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I hadn't read the comments here yet but started to research this AFD. Not only should this be a delete due to lack of notability, but Thohsaphol Sitiwatjana, aka Master Toddy' should also be nominated for AFD for the same lack of notability. I can'f find any good sources for either to substantiate otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartialArtsLEO (talk • contribs) 23:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I found nothing to show this show meets any notability criteria.Mdtemp (talk) 16:22, 24 June 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 UFO sightings in Brazil. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Westendorff UFO sighting[edit]

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

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

Non-notable UFO claim. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Summarize and merge with UFO sightings in Brazil, so it is placed among other minor but worth mentioning incidents. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I must agree with the above comments. This event does not have enough coverage to be notable for its own article. It seems to fit in the UFO sightings in Brazil article though. User226 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Crowe[edit]

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

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

Minor writer that fails WP:BIO. Article reads like an advertisement, and the writer Dan Crowe has not published anything of note. scope_creep 20:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The article does have some problems, however I don't have any concerns with WP:NOTADVERTISING, the sources, and, while I understand the fear, I think he is notable. PrairieKid (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete classic example of someone who has written but not been written about much. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject is not very noteworthy, by subjective standards (he's written what appears to be 3 articles total). He doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO, but that isn't a criteria for deletion. Along similar lines, this article seems to faili WP:SPIP since the only sources for the article are interviews and profiles of the author, which appears to fail the "other's have written about the subject" clause of WP:SPIP. The books by the author fail WP:BKCRIT which would indicate that the books are trivial or non-notable, and therefore the author, let alone of the EDITOR, are also most likely non-notable. Delete and move on. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- His main claim to fame is that he edited an magazine: evidently not a successful one as it is defunct. That strikes me as NN. The alterntive might be to merge with the magazine (or vice versa). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 18 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self-Explanatory[edit]

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

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

• Delete A not notable independently released "album". Clearly fails WP:NALBUMS. A check of Billboard.com shows that the album never charted and has not been covered by reliable sources. STATic message me! 15:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUMS as mentions by STATic, and a google search of the album (without the artist) gives 3 other albums that are more notable. Delete with extreme prejudice. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Unlikely search term. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:13, 17 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball studios[edit]

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

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unquestionably promotional.Deb (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not only is it self-promotional, it is also a recreation of a previously deleted article (they used a lowercase S in studios... so different /sarcasm). Speedy deletion seems important here. Chimpfunkz (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete per above - can't be speedied under G4 as Snowball Studios never went through AfD. Wouldn't it be ironic if this were SNOW deleted? Ansh666 18:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOWBALL. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. The previous article was deleted and salted. This recreation is obviously a page protection evasion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 23 June 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian crain[edit]

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

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

This person fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. In addition, most of the article was a copyvio, so I had to remove a substantial part of it. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawing nomination Article got nominated for speedy deletion. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per A7 by INeverCry (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Hoppa[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. This DJ/producer has done nothing notable to warrant an encyclopedia article. The only references are to primary sources and no reliable sources cover the subject. STATic message me! 14:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSICBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grande (talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Markazul Islami As-Salafi[edit]

Al-Markazul Islami As-Salafi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not Notable Madrasa. Have no reference. and not pass WP:N - Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 11:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To, Jayanta Nath Its a notable Madrasa in Bangladesh as the biggest educational institution of the sect Ahlul Hadeeth. And also Its far more famous Madrasa that many other less notable educational institutions found in Wikipedia. So I strongly support its existence here and hope anyone will develop it much more.. Thanks user: Nawfa2000

Dear user: Nawfa2000 please go through WP:N. Famous is not the criteria for inclusion of the article. And look WP:OSE.- Jayanta Nath ^{(Talk|Contrb)} 10:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To, Jayanta Nath There are many reliable sources have been added on references area. Thats proved that Its a notable Madrasa in Bangladesh as the biggest educational institution of the sect Ahlul Hadeeth. Verify these references.. Thanks user: Gumnam rahi —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per our usual practice for verifiable high schools. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 13:49, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per Phil Bridger and WP:NHS.--Zayeem ^(talk) 16:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G3 (blatant hoax) by Amatulic (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harylish[edit]

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

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

This article appears to be a hoax. Neither of the two sources mention a language variety named "Harylish" nor do they seem to have anything to do with language at all. Dusty|💬|You can help! 13:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete It is a hoax and WP:CB. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:35, 17 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Lafian[edit]

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

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

Concerns over the notability, veracity, and verifiability of this article, as discussed at the talk page. Disputed prod. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful delete I don't think that the available sources are sufficient to establish notability, especially as they do not appear to meet the criteria required for reliable sources. I have no doubt at all that the article was created in genuinely good faith. Nick-D (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ditto Nick-D, the sources used do not appear to meet WP:RS, and the subject does not appear to have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. I couldn't find any reliable sources and he didn't play a major part in the war. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 13:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I ask for some time as this is a new article. I made a proposal of deleting all controversial material. I am in the hunt for other sources in order to confirm some of this information and provide additional verifiability. Proudbolsahye (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chinwag) @ 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (whisper) @ 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER Does not have the notability to warrant a page. He did not earn a Congressional Medal of Honor and was not a multiple service cross recipient. Feickus (talk) 21:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Feickus[reply]
• Move to user-space. I do not know whether this man meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. If the article is moved to user-space, User:Proudbolsahye can develop it over time. If at some later date he/she feels the article demonstrates the notability of the subject, then he/she can move it back to article-space (and if it is still not evidently notable, it can be deleted).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Toddy1, that sounds like a good idea. I'll work on it and re-nominate it. I plan on reducing the article to bare minimum like I mentioned at the TP and see if I can get some local newspapers that the Lafian family has in their archives to thereby confirm his feats. Proudbolsahye (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:HISTRS for the kind of sourcing which is recomended for articles concerning historical subjects. Local newspapers should generally not be considered a satisfactory source - even some major newspapers lack expertise in accurately presenting historical stories. Nick-D (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Nick-D, I've read WP:HISTRS and as you well know, local newspapers aren't going to be the only source to be provided. They will be there for additional verification of other sources, nothing more nothing less. Nick...I have created a user page for Lafian and as you can see, it is a working progress. Please feel free to let me know which parts of the article needs to be deleted or needs to remain. Proudbolsahye (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I don't "well know" what reliable sources you're planning to consult here - the ones provided in the article at present do not seem reliable to me I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think treating Homer Lafian as a "historical subject" and applying WP:HISTRS is setting the bar way too high. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with option to Userfy; subject honorably served his nation, and received several notable mentions, however the subject of this AfD does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, there are sources that give the subject significant coverage, but their reliability is questionable and should be taken up at WP:RSN. If they are found to be notable, I would not be opposed to keeping this article. However, until that time, the sources do not appear to meet reliable source requirements, and the subject of this AfD does not appear to be notable. Therefore the subject appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Although two Silver Stars are exemplary, they are not sufficient for the subject to by considered notable on medals for valor alone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:07, 18 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3MB[edit]

3MB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Same concerns as previous AfD. Sources in article add nothing in terms of notability to the previously-deleted one. Fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It passes WP:GNG; there are many reliable sources out there. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 14:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to list any? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per criteria G4. The article is not significantly better from previous deleted version. STATic message me! 20:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article doesn't seem to be establishing notability in a way that isn't WP:INHERITED. Furthermore, most of the citations are all from the same source: PWT. I'm sure there are citations out there that establish notability (as @Citrusbowler: said), and I'd be willing to change my !vote to a keep if they were inserted into the article, but until that time it looks like it'll have to go. — Richard BB 12:16, 24 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Wood[edit]

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

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

Notability not established. No (reliable) secondary sources provided to show notability TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete When did we start running adverts? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The worst bit is that I've already cut significant rubbish from it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not cite any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 10:03, 18 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"RUCH" Pieńki Królewskie[edit]

"RUCH" Pieńki Królewskie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

doubtful notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newly created amateur team; no independent notability and sufficient coverage already in a sentence in the Pieńki Królewskie village article. AllyD (talk) 17:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:01, 21 June 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geekli.st[edit]

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

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

Notability and advertisement. Majority of references focus on the act of raising venture capital, not the company's accomplishments. Notnoteworthy (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm having a lot of trouble finding sources that don't talk about either the site just starting up or about them being sort of idiotic about how to respond to criticism. There's not a lot out there, to be honest. Much of what I'm finding falls under the "probably not useful" banner, such as this source that talks about the video kerfuffle by someone who could probably be seen as an expert but is still somewhat unverifiable in some other ways to where it's a dubious source. There are plenty of links by TNW, but then at one point they hosted a contest for people to win accounts when it was still in beta, so that sort of makes them somewhat unusable as a source since that makes them tenuously linked to the site. I've cleaned up the worst of the promotional speak, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you'll notice I just submitted a large number of pages that roughly fit that description - the articles are about how much money they've raised or who their investors are, secondary to that is what they do and that's very self-promotional in most cases. There is a small network of blogs (see my user page) that are focused on writing about venture capital fundraising and then follow-up articles as those companies progress which is notable to the world of startups and venture capitalists but usually less so outside those circles unless the companies break through to a much wider audience (like Dropbox, YouTube, Facebook etc). These blogs usually comprise the majority of references for this and similar company pages. Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Way WP:TOOSOON for notability for this less-than-a-year-old website. I could find no coverage from Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability isn't established through fundraising. Arrangington (talk) 20:14, 18 June 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abbanes[edit]

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

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

Also nominating the following on the same basis:

Misdaeus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

A merchant mentioned once in the apocryphal Acts of Thomas. Entirely non-notable. The entire article is a block quote from that apocryphal Act. Would be WP:BIO1E except that in this instance there's no substantive proof the E ever happened. Stalwart111 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misdaeus is a King mentioned in the same text and that text only. No other sources exist to verify his reign, thus notability. Stalwart111 08:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable. You might also want to look at Misdaeus, created by the same editor. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - bundled. Stalwart111 08:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Both subjects lack significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Minor figures from obscure ancient religious writings that have not received any sustantial commentary from scholars. Fail all notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Both articles were written apparently to in connection with a fringe POV fork created by the same editor that is also at AfD. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow! It is due to this Indian merchant Abbanes that Thomas was able to make his alledged travel to India and was able to get martyred allegedly by a Hindu Brahmin!!! If Abbanes is not significant / non-notable, then this whole bogy of St.Thomas's travel to India is not significant / non-notable. The whole fringe-story of St.Thomas's martyredom at the hands of a Hindu Brahmin in Mylapore Chennai in South India and alternatevely and more precisely in Indo-Parthia at the hands of the four soldiers of the Zoroastrian king Misdaeus all hangs on the significance of this Indian merchant Abbanes. If this article is non-notable because Abbanes is insignificant then you need to edit out all the story of St.Thomas's visit into India through this merchant Abbanes as found in the article Thomas the Apostle. St.Thomas's travel into South India, St. Thomas's travel into Brazil, Jesus's Visit into Kashmir, Adam and Eve's birth in Srilanka -all of these belong to the same category of bogous / fringe theores Jijithnr (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not really how it works - an account can be accurate or a text significant without every bit player or character mentioned in it being notable. "Peanuts" Burroughs held the horse that allowed John Wilkes Booth to escape after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. He is probably mentioned in multiple accounts and helped facilitate one of the most famous assassinations in human history. Still not notable. The subjects at hand are mentioned once, in one text, and nothing else exists to verify their existence, let alone notability. These articles can only ever be speculative OR because we simply don't know anything about them and the single account that exists is about someone else and only makes passing mention of them. Not even close to enough to substantiate articles. But you seem to be confusing the notability of characters with the validity of the story itself. One has nothing to do with the other and that is not what is being suggested here. Stalwart111 11:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has encyclopedic value, highlighting the name of merchant who purchased this notable slave from Jesus. Article needs development, which is being done, right now. Rayabhari (talk) 15:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The source added is simply an analysis of the primary source text and adds nothing more to what is available in that text. It does not provide any independent verification of the subject's existence, let alone notability. It verifies only the existence of the text which (while the content might be questioned) is not in doubt. Stalwart111 23:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As another editor says, "Minor figures from obscure ancient religious writings that have not received any sustantial commentary from scholars. Fail all notability guidelines." The belief by some that Thomas was a slave of Jesus is not a reason to keep this article. Dougweller (talk) 15:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, but merge last paragraph of Misdaeus into Acts of Thomas. There simply isn't enough written on these two characters to achieve notability. However, the differences between the Acts of Thomas and mainstream Christian tradition are worth noting in the Acts of Thomas article. -- 203.171.197.26 (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge into Acts of Thomas or Thomas the Apostle#Historical references to Thomas. The career of Thomas after the Ascension is a matter of legend, partly recorded by Christian writers over the following centuries. The two individuals, whose articles are under discussion are incidental characters in these legends. I do not think we can keep the articles, since we have nothing on them other than the references in the Acts (assuming these are correct quotations). However erasing the content completely also ought not to be an option: someone sometime will want to know the origin of a literary allusion. I do not know enough about the Acts or what differing versions of them may exist to be able to say more. I have to say that the alleged sale surprises me, but I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It surprises you because the Acts of Thomas is not a (mainstream) Christian work. It doesn't form part of the Church traditions of Indian Christians, and therefore there hasn't been a huge amount written about it... certainly not about minor characters in the story. -- 202.124.89.24 (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: NONE of the material in these articles is backed up with reliable secondary sources, and it is exceedingly unlikely that any such sources will ever be found. There is nothing that can be saved or merged. The paragraph mentioned above is an unsourced personal opinion of the creator of the article, who has tried in vain to inject his OR and personal opinions into the suggested merge target, and thus created a content and POV fork, which has been deleted. These two articles are byproducts. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. -- 202.124.89.11 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This should at the very least be kept as a redirect, so should not be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If a redirect is kept, these articles should still be deleted first, per WP:TNT. -- 202.124.89.11 (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT is a personal opinion essay that has attracted more opposition than support and , anyway, it calls for the replacement of defective articles by red links, so is inapplicable when an article is converted into a redirect. You have given no reason why the history should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both: Consider, for a moment, what if we applied the standards of the GNG to these articles? Even stipulating that the source material is reliable, the subjects receive a passing mention only, in a single work. That meets no notability standard we have. Ravenswing 08:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both Neither meets WP:GNG. Miniapolis 14:01, 1 July 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) czar · · 05:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebellion Beer Company[edit]

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

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

fails WP:CORP. found only tiny mentions in third party sources. Article contains many primary sources. When I checked what articles linked to this, it is only the town it comes from. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 07:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes GNG based on the substantial coverage in multiple, independently published sources showing in the footnotes. Carrite (talk) 15:06, 10 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH: [3], [4], [5]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Microbreweries has 175 articles, which suggests to me that the consenus is that commerical microbreweries are notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NCORP, sufficient independent sourcing available. Also, conforms with the Wikipedia content policy of WP:THEIRBEERISDELICIOUS. Zad68 18:24, 21 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y2Z[edit]

Y2Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to find any RS on this person, just seems like a fan site/advertisement. Not notable. Tyros1972 Talk 06:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 07:48, 10 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Aside from the subject's own sites, the article is sourced to his being played on 2 BBC programmes which focus on new-and-unsigned music. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above deletes. NN.Epeefleche (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 05:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Pairot[edit]

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

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

Article appears to be promotional. Subject lacks notability as per WP:CREATIVE. Sources fail to establish notability. Article author posted all of three edits and has since disappeared from Wikipedia. Additionally multiple improve tags were added in March 2013 with no apparent result. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep From Spiegel[6] and more [7], many of the news ones 404ed and I can't see archives for them, like the Bangkok Post which 404ed. Likely to meet GNG if some work is put in. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 10 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lloyd Powell[edit]

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

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

Nothing outside of WP:ONEEVENT and WP:ROUTINE suggests this article is notable. Sad, yes, but it reads like a WP:MEMORIAL page. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (chat) @ 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (shout) @ 20:57, 10 June 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, Theopolisme (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Primarily local coverage, no evidence of lasting notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- People with mental illness who die in police custody are regretably not unusual. Nothing in the article indicates notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 18 June 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 Tony Rothman. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The World Is Round[edit]

The World Is Round (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, no reliable sources. Was prodded, prod removed by the author without improvement. Huon (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Huon (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was improved. Check again.--Auric talk 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added a link to the ISFDB (broken; I repaired that). That's not a reliable source, and it didn't seem to lead to any reliable sources. Huon (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 23:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (deliver) @ 23:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (talk) @ 00:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article, and the search result summary snippet for this paywalled article indicate that the book was a bestseller but with no additional information. Given the book was published in 1978, online sources are going to be harder to come by but I did not find anything more significant in my search. As such it can be redirected to Tony Rothman#Selected works. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. No assertion of notability, mostly just a plot summary. — Richard BB 07:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as noted above, while I am sure sources exist, they will be mostly offline. Right now its claim of notability is un-substantiated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge and redirect to the author, Tony Rothman. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Book from a major publisher, perfectly suitable for an article. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not inherited, being published by a "major publisher" does not convey notability. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Tony Rothman#Selected works. I did not find any review in the New York Times, nor any listing on their best seller list, in 1978, 1979 or elsewhen. I checked newspaper archive and found no coverage of Tony Rothman's book. There probably was a Locus review, but I don't have access to the back issues. In 1978 virtually no science fiction novels were best-sellers, unless one restricts that meaning to just sales of science fiction, and even then I find no evidence of The World Is Round being a sci-fi bestseller, except as cited above in not necessarily reliable sources. (Note: Stephen King and Dean R. Koontz publish horror novels, even though they may use scifi tropes.) In 1973, Kurt Vonnegut's Breakfast of Champions made the best seller list. Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy first published in 1979 eventually became a best seller. But even books as notable as John Varley's 1977 The Ophiuchi Hotline, James Tiptree, Jr.'s 1978 Up the Walls of the World and Hal Clement's 1978 Through the Eye of a Needle weren't best-sellers. While the last mentioned books have had a lot of subsequent press, The World Is Round has not. Although the author says on his website To my embarrassment, in terms of sales, The World is Round has remained my most successful book. that does not make it a best-seller, except as with respect to him. --Bejnar (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I neglected to mention Gore Vidal's 1978 sci-fi novel Kalki which did have a New York Times review and Anne McCaffrey's 1978 sci-fi/fantasy The White Dragon which did eventually make the best-seller list. --Bejnar (talk) 06:15, 17 June 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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 19:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance SCADA[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)).

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

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

CSD contested. Not notable software. Promotional. Dewritech (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP BUT IMPROVE When looking at the range of fields where this software is used, I gotta say it’s notable enough. However, I definitely recommend adding some more references.Petr1979 (talk) 10:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC) — Petr1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete - Does not seem to meet GNG. Found a minor source though. [8] Just nothing meeting N or GNG as a whole. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The software is used by students at universities for dissertations [9] and scientific organizations for research[10]. The software is sold all around the world [11] and has also many remarkable success stories[12]. Many of them can nicely supplement existing articles on Wikipedia. For example Wiki article Digital_Park can be supplemented by this article[13]. So in my opinion the software is notable enough. I am suggesting to enhance it by a few interesting success stories. Zpilny (talk) 0:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Zpilny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Hello, I'm an engineer and I've made my dissertation (for Master Degree) with Reliance software. I've graduated the Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iași [14] and my Master teacher is Associate Doctor Engineer Luminiţa Scripcariu[15] and the Institution can be contacted on the webpage [16]. My dissertation paper can be found on my personal google drive account shared document link : cover [17] and content [18] . I got all the support from Reliance team when I had questions and I want to thank them for the help. Alex.lungu.eu (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Spent a good deal of time looking into this and I'm empty-handed. Article topic doesn't pass the search engine test for notability (the GNG). The bountiful non-English sources on the page are unfortunately all promotional. There are a few that appear to possibly be reliable, such as this article from Automa, but the article is signed to a GEOVAP employee. And the listed Haberortak article is also a promotional checklist of features. The independent sources just aren't there. Please ping me if more (non-English and offline) sources show in the future. czar · · 05:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nakhichevan Eyalet[edit]

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

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

No evidence that this entity ever existed. From Nakhichevan Khanate, the Ottomans occupied it between 1635-1636 and 1722-1736, but there's no mention of a eyalet/pashalik/beylerbeyilik being established anywhere. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I created the original redirect (not an article) based on Donald Edgar Pitcher's An Historical Geography of the Ottoman Empire (E.J. Brill 1972). On a list of "Eyâlets which had disappeared before 1609", Nahçivan is listed as "Beylerbeyi in 1603. Reference in 1591 to beylerbeyi of Erivan and Nahçivan, and possibly Nahçivan was never a separate eyâlet." I have added this info to the article (it was already in truncated form at Eyalet: Disappeared before 1609). —  AjaxSmack  00:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access the page from Google Books, but if it only possibly existed for just a decade, it's unlikely to deserve an article of its own. It could be merged with Short-lived Ottoman provinces instead.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a bad idea. Merge it. —  AjaxSmack  01:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I haven't seen Pitcher's book. But I know that Nahçivan was a part of the Ottoman Empire between the Treaty of Ferhat Pasha (1590) and the Treaty of Nasuh Pasha (1612) . It was either an eyalet of its own or a part of Revan (Erivan) eyalet. I think we should keep the article as it is. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was part of Erivan, why should we keep an article about a province that never existed?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a part of Revan. I said it was maybe an eyalet of its own or maybe a part of Revan (or any other neighbouring eyalet for that matter). Since there is a source which supports the first alternative then we should keep the article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't pass V and thus shouldn't be in mainspace at this time. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 8 June 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, LFaraone 02:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 03:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]