< 16 May	18 May >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 20:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torah magic[edit]

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

Not notable. Article has been tagged since 2008 with sourcing issues. All references are to personal pages, and the talk page even indicates that sources are not to be found. MSJapan (talk) 20:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources in this article to demonstrate that this term has any usage or that it meets any Wikipedia standard of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two of the three sources are ((deadlink))s and point to 404 errors. The other remaining source does not prove the notability of the topic. Also, a search shows no relevant news results for "Torah magic". - tucoxn\^talk 10:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google searches (such as this) lead to many false friends, such as articles on kaballah. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a notable subject. Ducknish (talk) 22:26, 20 May 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. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telecommunications Consultants India Limited[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:ORG. Only independent reference is a story that the government might sell some of it. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Department of Telecommunications. Seems an obvious solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIts a government company,qualifying as a PSU,most definitely passes WP:ORG and merge to DoT page is also not in order as it has enough qualifying references for it to hve its own page.Uncletomwood (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being government owned is not a notability criteria, not sure what you mean by PSU and no-one has suggested merging. The article has one independenet reference which is discussing the government possibly selling part of it. noq (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Because it is a 'government company' is an odd argument or reason for keeping this page. It is a POV, which does not assert notability per WP:GNG. The relevant government department, in this case the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) which has its own very short article, could , ideally, be expanded to include information about this company and its activities, which can actually be summed up in a very short paragraph. It would also give the DoT article more substance. I note, too, that, much of the article on this company/consultancy looks like an edited version of what appears on its own official website. Hence, providing the link to its website in the DoT article should suit all parties. I see no justification for retaining this article, whatever a PSU is! If we started having articles on all companies or consultancies because they are owned, promoted or sponsored by their respective national government, there would be no end to it.--Zananiri (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is provided with details now. Hope it is sufficient for future improvement of the article. Consider for retaining the article.Rajaram Sarangapani (talk) 09:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is now sufficient information to justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now with the recent improvements. I was going to say merge but not after the recent improvements. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:03, 25 May 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 Soft delete. L Faraone 00:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Porteous[edit]

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

Intro speaks for itself and represents the quintessence of a WP:SELFPUB article. The first cite is from the highly reliable Bebo, which is then followed up by the perennial dated favourite cite, Myspace. All the cites are from Myspace, Bebo or the bands own website. There is nothing about this so-called artist or his band at Allmusic.com, nor is there any reviews of their album Goodbye to Yesterday. There is not a dicky bird on Google news archive for the singer or the band [1]. The article is without doubt an advert for him and his band. The manual of style is unsurprisingly substandard. A look into the history of the article reveals some highly immature, unencyclopedic and trivial editing. It has been nominated for deletion previously but miraculously survived. Why no one has taken decisive action before to remove this pile of trash is worrying; furthermore, self-penned articles with Bebo and Myspace citations should never be allowed to linger on Wikipedia for over 5 years. I strongly propose deletion along with the band article, which I will move on to next. Good luck if anyone can find anything to counterclaim my nomination, I look forward to seeing what I may have missed. Bluidsports (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:RS found; fails WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 18 May 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 Almond biscuit. L Faraone 00:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almond cookie[edit]

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

Completing a malformed AfD nomination that wasn't logged. The original verbatim nomination (from the article's creator, diff page) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Almond cookie (which now redirects here) was as follows:

"The article Almond cookie was speedily deleted as being duplicative of Almond biscuit, an article about a Chinese almond bakery item. I created the [[almond cookie[[ article and am putting it up for deletion so how best to handle the subject matter can be discussed. Thank you for input and suggestions.Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)"[reply]

This 2nd nomination was created by: Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Almond biscuit, which I have already performed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes sense to merge an article about almond cookies, which take various forms in different cuisines, into an article about one type of almond biscuit. To me it doesn't seem constructive to either article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per recent changes to the Almond biscuit article, it is not about one type of almond biscuit at this time. There may not be enough sources comprised of significant coverage for a stand-alone article about almond cookies. However, much of the information is verifiable, so it can be included in the Almond biscuit article. Importantly, in some countries and languages, "cookies" (as they are referred to in the U.S.) are referred to as "biscuits" (see Biscuit – Variations in meaning). The speedy deletion nomination was incorrect, because the information was not duplicated in both articles (prior to the merge). I still feel that a merge is the most proper way to handle this, per WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Almond biscuit (or vice versa), and then clean up that article. Right now, it looks on first glance like it's about the Chinese biscuit because of the boxes/images on the right. Ansh666 02:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Almond biscuit has been reorganized. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that made it worse. It should go from general to specific, not the other way around. The pictures are off, too. In any case, there's nothing to change my opinion on the AfD'd article. Ansh666 00:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are the images "off" in the article? Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and fixed it. Still think the order is backwards, though. Ansh666 20:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge one into the other, due to a potential WP:FORK problem. Bearian (talk) 18:02, 20 May 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 Journatic. JohnCD (talk) 21:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Timpone[edit]

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

Brian Timpone's article fails based primarily on WP:NN and the fact that the article fits WP:SPIP. WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY also apply to this AfD. His company (which is what is talked about in most of the article) is notable & his personal history can be discussed in an brief excerpt on the page about his company (Journatic). Every one of the 8 citations on this page discusses his company, Journatic. None of them are about him. As an individual, he does not meet the standards to have his own Wikipedia page simply because he recently started a company that sells articles to newspapers. Also, most of the content about him is original research or his own opinions from his blogs / websites he owns. It is all primary source material. Additionally, this page reads more like PR and advertising – and it is heavily biased towards a positive (revisionist) view of Timpone’s actual behavior during the major 2012 scandal with his company, Journatic. For example, it uses wording like "Journatic’s one-time mistake" to minimize Timpone's actual behavior (which was not a one-time mistake, but actually something that happened over 300 times - see journatic). But anyway, this "mistake" has to do with Journatic - not Timpone. It is all covered under the Wikipedia entry Journatic which is notable as a company – and the subject of 30+ articles outside WP. Timpone, himself, is not a notable subject. His company has been discussed in numerous publications. As for him, sufficient information can barely be gathered outside of his own PR material, and this article is written with heavy spin about his involvement in the 2012 Journatic scandal. This even has a whole "response to criticism" section that I have never seen in a BLP on WP (and it is 25% of its content). It is very much WP:SPIP. This section even includes how his company (again, back to Journatic) paid overseas workers “more than most other places in the Philippines [that the workers could have worked at]" which is (a) about Journatic & not Timpone (b) not encyclopedic for a BLP...it's just PR and spin. So, I'd say: Keep Journatic (which is 2/3rds of the content here anyway) and Delete Timpone. ApolloLee (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ApolloLee - It's pretty clear from this user's comments here and her edits on the Journatic page that she has a serious axe to grind. I can't imagine any reasonable person looking at her edits on Journatic's page and agreeing that they are a neutral point of view. 92.114.94.86 (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To 92.114... All of my edits on the Journatic page are sourced by 24+ different reputable newspapers including The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun Times, Crain's Chicago Business, Poynter, NPR, The Guardian, The Chicago Reader, and more. Nothing I have stated is unsourced or with an “Axe to grind”. If you find the article to be “negative,” then please suggest changes. Unfortunately, the things that Journatic has done are public record (as recorded by many leading, unbiased newspapers that were my sources). If you can identify statements that are not sourced and are an “attack” then please do. I carefully read through these articles and took exactly what was presented in them. It is simply a (cited) fact that Journatic used false bylines (of American names for authors who were Filipino), plagiarized, and fabricated content. They attempted to cover this up when it first came out (also sourced) and the CEO’s decisions / behavior are all documented in reputable places outside Wikipedia. They then lost business due to this and other reasons presented in the article (and sourced). If you are writing about events that are not happy and great, then the article might look biased and like an “attack” - but the prior version was simply Journatic’s promotional material pasted in here (citing only “The Journatic Journal”) Now, I have cited 24 additional neutral POV newspapers and given the full story, which is not always pretty - but it is factual. Note, the above text applies to Journatic not to this AfD for Brian Timpone. ApolloLee (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not widely covered in media. Company that he is a CEO of is also being proposed for deletion. Agree to delete. Allisoncornish (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not voting here, but ApolloLee, please be more careful when replying to users - you inserted your comment within the IP's, meaning that their signature was nowhere near the comment. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that... thanks for fixing it. I think the "special contributions" confused me - I never saw that in a signature & thought it applied to the stuff below ("the debate has been included...") stuff. But Gene93k added that. Woops. ApolloLee (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and it's perfectly normal for an IP's sig. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to the company. Normally I think it's better to have the article on the individual who has usually done more things than just the company, but in this case all the sources seem to be about the company. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect makes sense to me too FWIW. ApolloLee (talk) 17:02, 24 May 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) 08:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thelion[edit]

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

~~unverifiable, Neologism or hoax~~ not notable, WP:NOT#DICTIONARY Djdubay (talk) 10:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After checking this word against Terminologia Anatomica and in every major dictionary including Webster's 11th Collegiate, ~~Webster's 3rd New International,~~ Random House Unabridged, American Heritage Unabridged, Chambers (for possible British usage) and lastly, but not least, the Oxford English Dictionary, I can find no limited evidence this is now or has ever been an actual English word. ~~It would appear to be at best a Neologism, if not an actual hoax page.~~ Reviewing the history, it apparently has never had any meaningful verifiable content, and its only recent revision was to add it to the appropriate anatomy template after being flagged as an orphan page in 2009.

The appropriate anatomical term is simply "nipple", and the Latin is papilla mammaria. The closest current word I could locate is "thelitis" from the Greek "thele" (nipple) and "-itis", meaning inflammation of a nipple. See the page "Fissure of the nipple" on this subject, which probably should have "thelitis" as an alternate title.

Also, "bustpoint" is not a term in the clothing industry, the closest term is "bustline" for the measurement taken across the fullest part of the bust.

File:Bustpoint.jpg the image on this page is used only by this page and should also be deleted.

Djdubay (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No hits on Google Books or Google Scholar. The term bustpoint yields some results on Google Scholar, however. I haven't checked whether that is enough for establishing notability, though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 12:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I left a message on the talk page of this page's creator, who is still active as of this month. Hopefully that gives insight into this page. Lucy346 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the word 'thelium'. Could this be a misspelling of that, or another word? Lucy346 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the challenge with 'thelium'. The only source of that word I've found is Webster's New International, Second Edition (1934) That source gives it as New Latin from Greek thele and defines it as a papilla or a nipple. Checking Webster's Third New International (1961) once again, I confess that I finally DID find 'thelion', given as New Latin from Greek thele and New Latin -ion, a diminutive suffix, and defined as "the central point of the nipple." So I must recant on the basis of neologism or hoax, but I do continue to question on the basis of notability. I should note that 'thelium' does NOT appear in Webster's Third New International, so it appears that the word fell out of usage by 1961. It would appear that 'thelion' would suffer a similar fate, should Merriam-Webster ever publish a forth edition. Neither word appear in Webster's Collegiate, nor in the OED. There is no usage in medical literature that I'm aware of. Certainly, it fails "significant coverage" as it can only be traced to a single source, and an outdated one, at that. Based on this additional research, I stand by the delete request as a stand alone page, and for File:Bustpoint.jpg, a gratuitous graphic that does not add meaningful content. If it's felt that the definitions of 'thelium' and 'thelion' are for some reason important, I'd suggest an edit on the page Nipple, rather than a stand-alone page.

Djdubay (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect/Merge~~ - Lucy346 (talk) 07:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wiktionary is suitable. - Lucy346 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#DICTIONARY The total value of this page is only as a dictionary entry for an obscure word. I have gone ahead and created entries in Wiktionary for thelitis, thelium, and thelion, as discussed here, and have earned a Request for Verification before I even finished editing the pages! If Wiktionary is challenging these words so darn fast, why do they belong in Wikipedia??

Djdubay (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for anyone interested, I have a user page up explaining my interests and how this request fits in the larger scheme of what I'd like to do here. Also, a talk page has been opened. Feel free to say hello.

Djdubay (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The word "thelion" does not seem to exist. The word "thelium" clearly does exist (it's in Stedman's Medical Dictionary among other places) but it does not mean what this definition says; it means "a nipplelike structure" or "a cellular layer" [2]. The "cellular layer" definition gives rise to words like epithelium and endothelium.[3] --MelanieN (talk) 00:33, 25 May 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. Tone 11:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Öksüz[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG as subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he didn't play in a fully professional league. Hack (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Giant Snowman. Fenix down (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No valid rationale for deletion was given by the nominator, and all !votes for deletion or userfication that followed from unrelated users have since been withdrawn. Additionally the nominator has put forth a keep !vote. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hersh[edit]

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

Author/ subject COI based on username of OP Basket _Feudalist 08:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep, he seems to be a notable figure in opthalmology, with enough sources, articles and achievments to back it up --Rubyface (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Author/ subject COI" is not a valid reason for deletion. The only reason for deleting this would be a failure to pass either the general criteria for notability or the specific ones for scientists and academics, and it may well fail. However Basket (aka You Can Act Like A Man), you were the one who approved this at AfC and moved it into article space. Surely, you must have seen that the article consisted almost entirely of primary sources (a fact which 3 separate editors had already commented on [4]) and had not been improved at all since the last comment on 1 May 2013. Voceditenore (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete from article space and userfy~~, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. (See below.) There are currently no reliable independent sources in the article which attest to the subject's notability under WP:PROF. None of the "awards" have verification, apart from his being elected a member of the American Ophthalmological Society. Note that the American Academy of Ophthalmology, to which virtually every American ophthamologist belongs, gives out a number of different kinds of "Honor Awards", which members can apply for themselves [5]. There is no verification that he has even received one of these, let alone which kind. The number of research papers is immaterial. What counts are commentary on and citation of these papers and his research by other academics in books or peer-reviewed journals. None has been provided. He is a clinical professor at the New Jersey Medical School, (normally not a senior, tenured position). Being a co-author of several textbooks, may count. I'll need to do more research on the degree to which they are widely used and reviewed. Note, though, that he a co-author of these books, rather than the sole author. Voceditenore (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look below at his citation statistics, as gathered from WoS, an independent, highly regarded bibliometric database. Those statistics are impressive and furnish conclusive proof of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Keep with many thanks to Agricola44 and DGG for the citation info and interpretation. Voceditenore (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy~~ I agree completely with Vocidetenore: the nom gives no valid reason for deletion. Nevertheless, this is quite a horrible article and far from what a biography should look like. (That incredibly long list of publications, for example, should be pared down to the three most notable ones). With az lot of work, this could perhaps turn into an encyclopedic article, but we're far from that at this point. --Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Keep. Article needs significant amount of pruning and content needs to be checked given some COI editing (by an editor named "Phersh" and an IP tracing back to the institute founded by Hersh). --Randykitty (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I need some advice before I rethink this. His combined library holdings figure on WorldCat is 514. Is that significant? Also, is there an easy but reliable way to determine his citation index? I find Google Scholar not a lot of help since most of the citations listed for each article are in other articles by the same author. Plus GS isn't comprehensive so it may be missing a lot. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the citations to his papers meet WP:PROF by showing him an authority: highest citation counts 234, 134, 117. Even in biomedical science, with high counts, 3 papers over 100 citation each is enough to show a persona ia an authority. If the textbooks are widely used, they counts also--all medical textbooks are produced by teams of editors, so coeditorship or co-authorship is significant. Ophthalmic surgical procedures is in 163 libraries, and has been translated into Japanese (ISBN 9784895920520) -- in general, only the most important textbooks are translated. I would have trimmed the publication list to make it an encyclopedia article, not a cv before accepting it, but its ok to fix it here also. DGG ( talk ) 14:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WoS shows 105 papers with a citation list of: 172, 99, 83, ... (h-index 22), which is an obvious pass on WP:PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, of course. Basket _Feudalist 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 17 May 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. L Faraone 00:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SWAD (software)[edit]

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

Declined CSD. No indication for notability. Only primary sources. Promotional. Dewritech (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to improve the article with references to several publications outside SWAD and the University of Granada. --Acanas (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A little better. Still needs to have inline links taken out. I say keep for now at least while an effort is in progress to show independent notability. Anyone speak Spanish to verify? W Nowicki (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The system has a niche target so there aren't really reviews in the normal sense. There are a few articles from when it was released that mostly reproduce the PR [6], but these three are useful [7] [8] [9]. Searching GScholar yields a lot of results; some are passing mentions and a large number of papers are from people in the UGR (which I don't think makes them automatically non-independent, but I won't push it), but they're not all: from the University of Costa Rica [10] (already in the article, but with the PDF hosted at OpenSWAD), and also [11] [12], [13] provide enough independent commentary to build an article — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:52, 22 May 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. I'm not crediting the contribution of the last participant. The vote is three to one, but more importantly, there is a distinct lack of references in publications proven to be reliable and relevant. Drmies (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adverse (hip hop artist)[edit]

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

Non notable. Plus the only source here is the subjects Myspace page. Koala15 (talk) 14:44, 9 May 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 May 9. Snotbot t • c » 14:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is notable. See here, here (review no longer online), and as a member of The Dorian Three here and here. He simply hasn't been active in a long time, but notability doesn't expire. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest a move to Adverse (rapper) though. The alternative would be to create an article for The Dorian Three and move the content of the Adverse article there. Wetdogmeat (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ ~~Weak delete~~ Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:MUSICBIO, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. He has worked with a few notable people, but is not yet notable as a musician himself. Captain Conundrum (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Subject meets notability as per WP:MUSICBIO #1. See above links. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSICBIO #1 says "...subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" in reliable secondary sources. Hiphopinfinity.com and killprettymagazine.com look like blogs. Adverse is mentioned in the Tiny Mix Tapes article about The Dorian Three, but it's not substantial coverage about him. Have you got any more sources? Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of them are blogs. Kill Pretty Magazine is a magazine, Hip Hop Infinity was a website with a paid staff. Wetdogmeat (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've added the Tiny Mix Tapes ref you found, plus a short interview with him that I just found in a Utah newspaper. I can't find anything online about Kill Pretty or HHI to show that they're WP:RS, but let's keep digging: maybe between us we can find enough to squeak it through MUSICBIO, in which case I'll be glad to change my vote. Captain Conundrum (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand; is it not clear from the two websites that they are, respectively, a magazine with an editorial staff and a website with an editorial staff? There's even a section on the Kill Pretty site labeled 'blog', indicating that the other content on the site isn't a blog, and there's an image of someone reading a physical copy of the magazine. HHI was pretty famous about ten years ago in the alt-rap scene; it was owned and managed by Jay Seagraves, it was a business, with a paid staff, certainly not a blog (see the old message board for instance: there is a sub-forum called 'Staff Board'). Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's clear that they're not blogs, but their notability is unclear, so I wouldn't count what we've got so far as "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in WP:RS". A week's gone by, and neither you nor I can find any further WP:RS on him, so in the absence of significant secondary coverage, and the rest of WP:MUSICBIO, I have to say delete. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Their notability is irrelevant. We're trying to establish the notability of the subject, not of the sources. It's not a question of notability, in the sense that it's not a question of whether Hip Hop Infinity or Kill Pretty Magazine qualify for Wikipedia articles of their own, it's a question of their reliability as sources that establish the notability of the subject Adverse. They do meet the criterion of "non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." And we're now up to coverage in four separate sources, meeting the criterion of multiple sources: Hip Hop Infinity, Kill Pretty Magazine, Tiny Mixtapes & Steamboat Today. Wetdogmeat (talk) 17:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I'm not being precise enough above, but their reliability is also unknown for now, staff or no staff. So we only have two sources so far that I would call reliable, which in the (admittedly fuzzy) definition of "significant" and "substantial", isn't really enough IMHO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 18:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How, in theory, would we go about determining their reliability, if having a paid editorial staff isn't enough? How do we determine the reliability of sources in general? Questionable sources are defined as "those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." This doesn't apply to any of the four sources that we have. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering two of the sources are interviews with the subject and the other two are album reviews, it seems that reliability (on the basis of the presence of editorial oversight) can be assumed without any problem. It's not as though one of the sources is a third-party bio making dubious claims about the subject. Wetdogmeat (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like hair-splitting to me. I can see the photo on the Kill Pretty "About" page you linked to above of someone reading a printed copy. That about page is the description of a fan mag compiled by a group of friends. Going by its shop page and its preview page, it appears to have only ever had one issue. Nothing about it having a paid staff, or editorial oversight, or anything in secondary sources that tells us whether it's reliable or unreliable. Since we can find next to nothing about it outside of its own site, we have no evidence that it's a WP:RS. Same applies for HHI. With no way to determine their reliablility yet, then we shouldn't rely on those two sources as evidence of notability. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:30, 21 May 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, Mkdw ^talk 07:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Who? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Wetdogmeat (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable enough to be on English Wikipedia. --JayJaykar (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)— JayJaykar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

How is he notable? Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:07, 21 May 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. Tone 11:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Bound[edit]

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

Declined speedy but a shufti through Google shows a deficency of reliable sources. As such this falls for deletion. nothing on news Nothing obvious on books Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the artist has no article and there's no indication of particular notability for this recording. --bonadea contributions talk 19:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article doesn't make a credible assertion to notability and the reference is user submitted content. Does not meet WP:NALBUM and the artist does not have an article (A9). Mkdw ^talk 19:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this get deleted then please also delete the album cover at File:First Degree The D.E. - South Bound (Album Cover).jpg. Also First Degree The D.E. existed until very recently. I may question the speedy deletion of this as there were claims of importance, although may not pass AFD. Normally I would delete any rapper article, but that is just my bias against that sort of performance. So perhaps we should also consider whether First Degree The D.E. should be kept as part of this discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:49, 18 May 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 with no prejudice to re-creation when he meets WP:NFOOTY. JohnCD (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hervin Ongenda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had received significant coverage. However, the coverage he has received is routine sports journalism, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate or userfy as WP:TOOSOON. Has not left the bench against a pro team yet. But if [this] is correct, it's a matter of time.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I withdrew the PROD earlier. I fail to see which part of the WP:GNG has not been met. Yes, you might call it "routine sports journalism" but the newspaper articles are nonetheless reliable, secondary, independent and provide significant coverage. Hence I can't see how this fails GNG? — Amakuru (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is secondary coverage, but its substantiveness is in question. Sources don't strike me as major media, though that's not my area. That said, thanks for acknowledging your role in removing the PROD.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - was probably created too soon but has since received significant coverage in reliable sources:

Article in French so someone will have to tell me what it says but it's obviously about the subject.
Article from Metro.
Article from Talksport.
Article from the International Business Times.

GNG aside, is there much point incubating something for days/weeks? Stalwart111 00:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footmercato article is about his hopes to sign a professional contract with PSG or another strong team. Basically like the other articles. Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is likely not a matter of days or even weeks, but multiple months at least. His club PSG have three games to play and are having trouble closing the national title, so Ongenda is unlikely to see play in the top league. After that, he'll have to sign a pro contract, and then it will be somewhere in the next season, at best, until he plays. I would say 6 months minimum before he has a chance to meet the WP:NFOOTY part. So, incubate makes sense to me.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that seems logical enough, and I can accept he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY at the moment. But I'm still inclined to think he passes WP:GNG. Don't you think? Stalwart111 14:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GNG, this depends on the quality of the sources. I'd be wary of Metro as a source, and the two sentences don't add up to much. International Business Times has a pretty large readership, but as a sports source it's more dubious. The websites, I don't know. Hopefully another editor can advise.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, true, but there's also the ones already in the article like the Daily Mail. They might not be the New York Times but I think they probably get there. Anyway, as you say, let's see what others have to say. Cheers, Stalwart111 22:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL, but WP:GNG is trickier. I'd say the sourcing was WP:ROUTINE and may even fall into WP:BLP1E territory (i.e. signing for a club). Giant Snowman 19:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's where my hesitation was. I couldn't see that he had actually signed, more that clubs were interested in him. If it were just routine coverage of a signing ceremony... but they seem to be about his skills and record and the fact that big clubs have subsequently expressed interest in him. Would you still say that falls under WP:ROUTINE? Stalwart111 23:28, 10 May 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, Dea db eef 06:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Has yet to play in a fully professional league and the only coverage is of "transfer gossip" rumour - which pushes it firmly into WP:CRYSTAL territory. Funny ^Pika! 17:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and FunnyPika, no meeting of NFOOTBALL and the media coverage seems to be routine, missing GNG. C 679 05:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Has played no higher than the Championnat de France amateur. Argyle 4 Life^talk 06:22, 25 May 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. Tone 11:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Vlaskovits[edit]

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

The sources do not reference notability of the person. There is barely one reliable independant source which speaks of him directly, and that too tends to focus on his book. The other reliable source tends to only be a listing of best-selling books, and not about the subject. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 1 May 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 · · 17:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unquestioned keep.The person who writes a NYT best seller is a notable author, and nothing more really needs to be shown or proved, though such a person in practice will also get reviewed widely enough to meet the GNG. What authors are notable for is writing important books, just as athletes are notable for athletic accomplishments or scientists their scientific work , or actors their performances, and nothing about their personal life needs to be included, though it's usually good to have a little if its available. If an author were to have sources only about him as a person that do not refer substantially to his work, I do not think they even contribute to notability as an author. DGG ( talk ) 02:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and WP:NAUTHOR Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 13:15, 16 May 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, Dea db eef 06:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG - virtually no coverage in reliable sources and nothing that would constitute significant coverage. Fails all points at WP:NAUTHOR - 1: not an important figure or widely cited; 2: hasn't introduced anything new or revolutionary; 3: too soon to tell if the subject's work will be considered significant; 4: see 3. Hack (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did some revisions on the article, which looks ok, even though it lacks secondary sources about the person (and not only his books). Usually I would vote for a deletion, but this article contains the bare minimum to build a solid article overtime --Rubyface (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (yak) @ 09:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion Hub[edit]

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

Company does not meet WP:GNG. There are a ton of sources which is why I went AfD instead of Speedy, but they are all press releases or from the company website. One is also a broken link. I cannot locate any WP:RS that would show the notability of the company. The Business Week article for Joel Fu is a self-published bio just like the majority of the other references. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 13:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While some if the references aren't brilliant, the company is discussed in detail in printed newspapers, which for me makes them notable 31.73.226.133 (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for the information. Can you point out which printed newspapers they are "discussed in detail?" I do not see it in the current article. Also, which of these newspapers would be considered a WP:RS? Thank you. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A good nomination, however on further inspection I'd say keep. As discussed above, the company has appeared in The Straits Times, The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao. All 3 papers would pass WP:RS 31.68.145.109 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really? Two !votes from similar IP addresses only here to vote keep with no other contributions? OK, I will assume good faith and not file a WP:SPI at the moment. Anyway, you state that all three references would pass WP:RS. Let's take a look...The Straits Times itself would be considered a reliable source, but not the reference used in the article [14]. It is simply a regurgitation of a press release. As such, it is self-published and not considered reliable. The Business Times Singapore reference is a dead link so I cannot really judge the content [15]. Also, just because Lianhe Zaobao has a Wikipedia article does not make it a reliable source. Upon looking at the title (as no link is present in the article), "SgCarMart and Singapore Press Holdings in 60m deal" looks like another press release reprinted and therefore would also not be reliable. Finally, comparing the guidelines for WP:RS, can tell me your opinion about the article references from all of the press releases, Conversion Hub's own website, and the website of SgCarMart? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:40, 8 May 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 · · 17:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment - I apologise the top IP was me (I created the article), I must not have logged in. Firstly, all three newspaper references are correctly referenced in accordance with WP:CITEHOW, the dates are mentioned and where possible also the authors. The fact that I tried to link to a deadlink makes no difference if it should be accepted as a newspaper reference, as you can see on WP:CITEHOW. At no point do I, or the other keep argument mention the STCars.org article as a credible reference, it isn't a good reference as you point out. The Straits Times, The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao are three of the leading newspapers in Singapore. For this reason they clearly pass WP:RS. The article couldn't be built on stronger grounds for a Singapore based company to be referenced in 3 of its leading newspapers. It'd be like a New York company being discussed in the NY Times for instance Adel4570 (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thank you for proving my point. If the articles "discussed" (your words, not mine) the topic, then it would be notable. However, the topic is only "referenced" (again, your words, not mine) in these publications. Being referenced is exactly what I am saying as they are passing mentions and passing mentions do not count. Just because a topic is mentioned does not make it notable. Please tell me how these mentions amount to WP:SIGCOV. Finally, if you knew it was a dead link when you put it in the article, why did you do it? I agree that links are not required to prove a source; however, they way you styled a few of these references (including citing the Business Times Singapore as simply the Business Times) shows notability masking. Your comemnts above demonstrate a strong understanding of WP:RS, yet you failed to put any in the article as it is full of press releases and passing mentions. It comes down to the quality of references, not quantity. At this point, I do not see your policy reasoning for keeping the article and unfortunately I will have to keep my delete !vote. Sorry. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that the company had only been mentioned/discussed in all three newspaper articles. All three articles in the The Straits Times, The Business Times and Lianhe Zaobao are about them, meaning they pass WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. This was the main reason I wrote the article on them. Also, using self published or questionable material isn't ideal, but can be used as a reference for lesser points (which is the way I have attempted to reference the article). This was carried out in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. In summary, the article in my opinion passes both WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV due to having lengthy articles published about it, in 3 leading Singaporean newspapers. Finally none of the questionable sources are "exceptional claims" (WP:ABOUTSELF) in my opinion, and are therefore fine to use to expand the article out. Adel4570 (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Funny you bring up WP:ABOUTSELF. In fact, for only having a total of 3 edits you seem to be very knowledgeable on Wikipedia policy. Anyways...you seem to want to only read the section of WP:ABOUTSELF that you feel supports your contention and NOT read the entire guideline to apply it to the article. What you say is fine with the exception of the article cannot be based primarily on such sources (see item #5). This article is only held up by such sources so if you knew this policy it seems again as if you are just creating content that you want and grabbing at any policy you can as opposed to reading the policy before you implement the content. Now for the sources you say are reliable, please refer to my previous comments. One has no link so I cannot see it, the other is a regurgitation of a press release which puts it into the WP:ABOUTSELF category, and the final one doesn't have a link but the title puts in doubt that it is anything other than a press release. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The article isn't based on primary sources? The main notable points are all taken from three newspaper articles and the awards are referenced directly from the awarding websites. These references are all reliable secondary sources, and they alone are more than capable of building a credible article from. The additional content (such as the companies history), is taken from primary sources, which as we've discussed is allowed in accordance with WP:ABOUTSELF. I ensured that the notable points were all well referenced, and I feel they are. If you think differently then lets agree to disagree. In terms of the newspaper articles, saying that two out of the three are poor sources without reading them is not really a valid argument. Adel4570 (talk) 15:55, 10 May 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, Dea db eef 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete I think we usually want some third party sources about the work of the firm, not just the financial reorganizations. DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 19 May 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. Deleted as promotional, A7, G5. Bearian's pun is accepted though judged light. Drmies (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fraser (psychic)[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:AUTHOR. Has been on a syndicated paranormal talk show a few times. Article creator blocked as sockpuppet of serial spammer and sockpuppeteer. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not yet famous, per WP:UPANDCOMING, WP:GNG, and pardon the pun, WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep per WP:RS.--JayJaykar (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — JayJaykar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Note to reviewing admins: User:JayJaykar has been blocked as another sockpuppet of same spammer. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:52, 21 May 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/withdrawn. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Lawrence McGillvary[edit]

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

This article is about someone notable only for a minor viral video and who, apparently, is now suspected of murder. All sources are related to one of those two things. It may be "two events" but in my opinion, this is basically a WP:BLP1E case. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as original article creator, although I will admit he's borderline. The coverage is from this year, but begins in February and goes through this month. If this doesn't survive AfD, I don't mind taking it back into my userspace and incubating it for a few more weeks. It's likely to get more coverage (not saying this as an argument for its inclusion, but just saying that I believe it'll get more in the future to warrant a solid keep/re-add if it's deleted) and if that does occur, I'll re-add it. The big thing here is that there's quite a bit of coverage right now and he kept getting covered even after his February incident. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite NorthBySouthBaranof claiming that two incidents are "basically a WP:BLP1E case," last time i took a math class, two did not equal one. We have a WP:BLP1E rule -- not a BLP2E rule or a BLP3E rule -- and more people have viewed that video than have read many famous books or voted for many politicians. Those people will be following this second incident as well. 70.36.137.19 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a journalist, I'd say this story will keep growing and become very celebrated, unless for some reason he's not charged. In other words, if you take it down now you'll only be putting it up again in a month or so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.30.204 (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it seems to be alright but can do with additional information, if Tokyogirl79 does 'incubate it for a few more weeks' I think it would be alright. TwinTurbo (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, He has received coverage and been on several television shows after the fact. The fact that it's making waves that he is now arrested is a second event that adds to notability.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:48, 18 May 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 List of V for Vendetta characters. Tone 11:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Saxon[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable character (within or outside of the franchise). Minimal coverage in RSes. Could possibly be merged into List of V for Vendetta characters, but I do not see a compelling reason to do so. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. While the nom may not see any reason to do so, the fact that an article on a subtopic of a notable fictional work exists is indication enough that someone else thought it important to document. There's also a good bit of commentary on the real-world impact/symbolism of the in-universe character which could probably be sourced. Merge per WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 17:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom and Jclemens, Sadads (talk) 17:31, 17 May 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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 21:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Martell[edit]

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

I do not see what shows notability. The references are mostly just mentions. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:55, 2 May 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) 00:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTRESUME. the references are not indepth. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:16, 17 May 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. Tone 11:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haebangsan Hotel[edit]

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

This hotel appears to be non-notable. The references I can turn up to it are all passing and do not sound very notable. Lonely Planet Korea has a single sentence [16] that reads, "Centrally located, this hotel has decent enough rooms, a good shop, pool tables and an office for booking international train tickets." The Rough Guide to Korea [17] describes it in a passing reference and concludes, "...24-hour running water is not guaranteed. Another drawback is a near-total lack of atmosphere or on-site activities." Neither of these suggest notability, and do not seem to pass WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pothonggang Hotel. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are evidence of existence but there is no evidence (or claim in the article itself) that this hotel is notable. AllyD (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. The page does not even give any indication of its exact location, apart from telling us it is in North Korea. Unlike notable hotels such as the Raffles Hotel in Singapore, the Waldorf Astoria New York or the Shepheard's Hotel in Cairo, this North Korean hotel does not seem to deserve its own page, if all the creator of the article can tell us about it is the number of rooms it has. It could be included in the List of hotels in North Korea article giving its exact location, which should suffice. The deletion criteria at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pothonggang Hotel apply here as well.--Zananiri (talk) 13:43, 18 May 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. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StudentFreelance[edit]

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

Not sure if this passes WP:WEBSITE Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 00:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it passes WP:WEBCRIT. It does seem to have multiple independent, reliable sources. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:WEBCRIT. --Klein zach 01:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment depends on whether you consider reviews in tech blogs [18] and student run publications [19][20] as reliable sources. The other sources in the article are not independent. Funny ^Pika! 07:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, as Pika notes above, the only good source so far is a short review on TechCrunch; the HuffPo article is written by the site's creator, and I don't think student newspapers qualify as WP:RS. That's all the WP:Secondary coverage I can find about the site online, though I might be searching for the wrong terms. Captain Conundrum (talk) 12:53, 7 May 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 · · 03:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The tone is promotional, withe such sentences a "connecting talented students to employers in need of specific skills." The "Mission" section is normally a place where we do of necessity allow promotional statements, but the "Innovation" section reveals the promotional nature of the content. Not surprising, because the sources are PR-infliuenced. If it becomes more notable , there will be better sources for an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one of the sources listed (The TechCrunch one) can be considered both reliable (I'm not sure what the policy is on student run newspapers but I'm assuming they're not reliable, if they are then I would change to Keep) and independent (some are written by the CEO of the company). My attempts to find more coverage resulted in no additional sources. Transcendence (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yawn. History2007 (talk) 19:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the arguments about WEBCRIT, I do not find the sources compelling enough to establish notability. For example one source is a primary source, the Huffinton Post references are actually the same one duplicated twice (one a search index, and the other the listed article). Some contain trivial mentions. Mkdw ^talk 19:17, 19 May 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erin O Wallace[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WRITER Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 10 minutes from article creation to AfD, with no intermediate steps to improve or at least tag the article? WP:BEFORE is more than just a good idea. - Dravecky (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest? Notability can't be improved(on your own). I've already checked for the subject's notability and have not found it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 00:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've found a couple of sources and am adding them to the article. I would suggest a Google search, a notability tag, a message to the creator in their talk page, then a PROD tag before taking an article to AfD. 10 minutes from creation to AfD with no intermediate steps and no clean-up efforts is just biting the newbie. - Dravecky (talk) 00:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I've found a few sources, one more on point than the other, and added them to the article. While Wallace's latest book is from a notable publisher, she may better meet notability guidelines as a hotelier than as an author alone. More sources would be better. - Dravecky (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ ~~Not the strongest claim to notability I have ever seen, but enough to satisfy the relevant guidelines.~~ Safiel (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete I may have been feeling overly charitable the other day. Very little on Google and the sources given indicate only local notability. Safiel (talk) 04:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I would love to vote keep as this seems like an interesting author, there are not enough WP:RS to support notability. She has 2 books, both of which are listed in Amazon, but nothing really talking about her or the books. The 2 source that are in the are in the article are local coverage so they would support content in the article, but not notability. Unfortunately, she falls short of WP:GNG unless there is significant coverage (which I cannot locate). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The two sources cited are local news stories that mention Wallace's role in a ghost hunt and the restoration of a hotel, but they don't show the in depth coverage required by WP:GNG and particularly by WP:AUTHOR. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of her two books is self-published using "Bookstand Publishing", a vanity press. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage is from a small local newspaper, does not meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 21:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The book from History Press is in 4 libraries total on worldcat. this + a selfpublished book about what a local society, with references only to local papers, is not notability . DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 19 May 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. J04n(talk page) 21:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Jae/StarRoc (album)[edit]

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

Per WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Also rather promo-y. Dea db eef 06:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In complete agreement with nom. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:30, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 05:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. STATic message me! 22:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one case where WP:HAMMER applies. The first and third sources are the same artist interview and all three only make one passing mention to the title of his forthcoming album "Its Tha Roc", if you can even consider them to be reliable in the first place. No in-depth reviews, track list or definitive release date. Not even sure its parent article meets WP:NMUSIC either. Funny ^Pika! 06:20, 21 May 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 List of Hillsong albums#J. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Is My Superhero[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another spam page by the Hillsong PR department it seems. History2007 (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect without evidence of specific noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whilst I'm not a christian music fan, the album was nominated for 'Best Children's Music Album' at the 37th Gospel Music Awards [21]. The DVD was accredited as a 'Gold Record' by ARIA.

The alternative would be a redirect to Hillsong Music Australia under the heading Awards.Dan arndt (talk) 03:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Obscure video games and non-Christian songs count as articles. Is Wikipedia anti-God? It might be. The song is award winning. 2014X (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 2014X (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I haven't been able to find anything that would confirm the song is award winning - all I can find is that it was nominated for an award (which is different).Dan arndt (talk) 09:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything that passes WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 20:01, 23 May 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 List of Hillsong albums#S. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super Strong God[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small time item by small time group. History2007 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect without evidence of specific noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 19 May 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. Tone 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Music by a nobody History2007 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete or redirect without evidence of specific noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whilst I'm not a christian music fan, the album was nominated for 'Best Children's Music Album' at the 39th Gospel Music Awards [22].

The alternative would be a redirect to Hillsong Music Australia under the heading Awards.Dan arndt (talk) 03:15, 20 May 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. Tone 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell the World (Hillsong album)[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obscure, not worth telling anyone about it. History2007 (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect without evidence of specific noteworthiness - David Gerard (talk) 17:38, 19 May 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. Tone 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow You[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of individual notability. Is there a list these things can go on? Hillsong in general is noteworthy, each individual item less so - David Gerard (talk) 08:06, 19 May 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. Tone 11:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Kids Collection[edit]

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

Could not find any reliable sources to confer notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Child's play item. History2007 (talk) 08:38, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list - David Gerard (talk) 08:07, 19 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SuaVay Nova[edit]

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

Looks promotional to me since the only person that has ever edited it, is the creator of the page. Koala15 (talk) 14:41, 9 May 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 May 9. Snotbot t • c » 15:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage whatsoever in reliable, independent sources for this rapper. The first "reference" reports that his mixtape has had two, count 'em, two downloads. Not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:00, 17 May 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 soft delete. If someone believes the subject to be notable and is willing to rework the article I will userfy it to them upon request. J04n(talk page) 14:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Jo McGrath[edit]

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

Possible copyvio? Reads like a press release, little indication of independent notability nothing in the way of a solid secondary source establishing it. Created wholesale by User:Chendrix in 2007, who has edited no other articles in any substantial way. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - although she fails my tests for lawyers, she may pass WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE as an author. I found her books at Google Books, and several lengthy quotes in reliable news sources, so she appears to be legit. However, the article is a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What an odd comment. Nothing you say justifies your vote, unless being "legit" is a valid keep criterion. If I'm ever the defendant in a jury trial, please remind me not to hire you. If AFD is truly not a vote, I expect the closing admin to read this a "delete." 66.108.176.187 (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at most borderline notable, and highly promotional -- almost a G11. An extensive article about someone of at borderline notability is almost also at attempt at promotion, and this seems a good example of that. The sources in Google News Archive are either merely mentioning her as being an attorney in a case, or consist of her own statements. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 19 May 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colmar Brunton[edit]

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

Attempted to find sources for this one but just ended up with a few hundred passing mentions about surveys that have conducted. The company fails WP:GNG as there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS and there is also no WP:CORPDEPTH. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that finding sourcing would be difficult given the number of poll results that turn up, but this is a major market and social research and polling company. The extent to which its polls are considered newsworthy (especially in NZ from what I've seen) goes a long way to establishing the firm's notability IMO. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the comment. I do see that they are a rather large firm in the polling industry and believe that we can combine the multitude of passing mentions to potentially support notability. However, how do we support the content beyond them being who they are? The article is rather large for a company without any references to be found. I think beyond stating who they are with a simple sentence or two there is nothing to support the rest of the content. Thoughts? --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From my personal knowledge of this firm (I've never worked for them and have no conflict of interest) all the material in the article appears correct, other than the claim that this is "Australia's largest independent market research agency" which is questionable. It's certainly among the largest. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are probably one of the largest independent market research agencies and notable in the real world, but for Wikipedia, our personal knowledge cannot be used as a WP:RS. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs work, but from a few minutes on Google News I can see sources that go well beyond "Colmar Brunton poll says X". They include a scandal over tobacco polling, analysis of methods that suggest a right-wing bias, and reports on corporate deals and job cuts: New Zealand Herald[23], Stuff/Business Day[24], Stuff/Dominion Post[25], MRWeb[26], Voxy[27], Research (magazine of UK Market Research Society)[28] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for function, but the type is not one to push the news outside of their polls, as seen above they do get some coverage, but anything necessary about key organization matters needs to come from records and business work that is rather specialized at this point. Pew Research Center is similarly in this boat on Wikipedia, despite being equally well established. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 18 May 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. L Faraone 00:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo Group Entertainment[edit]

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

First, I may be wrong here, but the article certainly feels like spam. Its creator, Lyle Stein, produced a short burst of edits relating to this club - his only activity on Wikipedia.

Second, I don't see any clear indication of reliable sources establishing notability. This is a corporate directory. This and this are blog posts. True, this is from an established newspaper, but announcements of club openings happen routinely, without that necessarily establishing a claim to notability.

The rest of the "references" deal with celebrities who have performed at the club. Now, for one, this seems to fall under WP:NOTINHERITED: just because notable individuals A, B and C performed in venue X for one or two or five nights does not necessarily make the latter notable. And for another, the sourcing on those appearances is generally wretched. There's a hefty dose of tabloids Libertatea and Cancan, and then some truly awful stuff like the club's Pinterest page, a press release, another press release and some random ad on a blog. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:42, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. czar · · 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note prior AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bamboo Club - I declined a WP:CSD#G4 nomination to delete Bamboo Group Entertainment because the two articles were different and G4 didn't apply, but I agree that this one isn't a keeper either. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The club is well-known in Romania. Here are two independent sources: ProTV and Ziua. They present the Bamboo club in a negative tone (regarding it's financial situation), but the first one says it is "the most well-known club in Romania" and the second calls the club "famous" and says that it "is percieved as a label of luxury". Another source, Adevărul, says "Bamboo este simbolul fițelor" (Bamboo is the symbol of being excessively trendy, in my approximative translation). Razvan Socol (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi. I am Wikipedia reader less editor. Please keep the page, I find it useful and well writen! Readerwicki (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC) — Readerwicki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Hello. I am definitely not an expert on this, but it seems to me that this page contains potentially useful information. Yes, the page could be improved, but i believe that it is better to have something rather than nothing. And i disagree with the policy that articles on non-notable things should be deleted. Merci Beaucoup. NHCLS (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, perhaps Wikipedia isn't the place for you. Whether you like it or not, this is the policy: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This is an encyclopedia. That means we must discriminate between what is notable and what isn't. That means, at times, it is better to have nothing than to have something. That's why we have so many guidelines to help us gauge notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:07, 6 May 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 · · 19:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:30, 17 May 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. J04n(talk page) 14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Conigliaro (mixologist)[edit]

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

This article links to very few other articles and makes no attempt to establish notability. I move for its deletion. SteelMariner^Talk 00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current version of the article is dreadful, and I would suggest it be revered back to a non promotional version like this one from the history. Articles like [29], [30], [31] demonstrate that he is a notable bartender / mixologist. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Though the version you cited looks better, the point below still applies, which is that there is no notability here. It is a page about a bartender that lists several non-notable awards and makes several uncited claims to notability. SteelMariner^Talk 12:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see any way that he meets the notability criteria for WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Unless we can come up with some other criteria for establishing the notability of bartenders (something the Bartending Task Force never managed to develop), I don't think this passes muster. Ibadibam (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, satisfies WP:NOTE, per Whpq (talk · contribs), above. — Cirt (talk) 16:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please elaborate. Of those articles linked above, only the first and second are what we usually consider a reliable source, and by my reading of WP:NOTE, they don't really give him significant coverage in a way that demonstrates long-term notability. Is there something I'm missing? Ibadibam (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with the third source? Luxury lifestyle magazines may not be of interest to the average person, but that the site has an editorial board. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, my mistake. I didn't notice it was a magazine. My above comments still stand, though: could someone actually explain which notability criteria are met by this individual? Ibadibam (talk) 20:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The appropriate guideline is WP:GNG as established through significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I picked out three sources of the ones I found quickly. I feel these sources fit the guidelines. The third source is a full profile where he is the primary topic. The first and second sources do not feature him as the primary topic, but the coverage not a passing mention, and sufficient for me to say that it represents significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm going to say that notability per WP:GNG (via WP:BASIC) is arguable. There's not really any depth to any of these sources, and there's nothing that provides evidence of real notability. A lot of shopowners, chefs and bartenders get written up as part of lifestyle/dining guides, and there's been no consensus to date as to whether that's enough to establish notability. (If he had made an enduring contribution to mixology this would be a lot more clear-cut — cf. Victor Vaughn Morris.) Perhaps it would be safe to let the article stand, cut out all the fluff, and reassess it later per WP:NTEMP if enduring notability can't be established. In the meantime, I'll stick some article message templates on it to pinpoint some of the issues. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - After snorting through the multiple independent published sources cited above, it seems that this subject does pass GNG. Not a rousing pass, but a pass, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 17 May 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia Gladden[edit]

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

College basketball player does not meet the WP notability standard for athletes - see WP:NBASKETBALL, which requires at least one game in a major professional sports league or a very high draft pick in the national league to establish notability. College basketball players' notability guidelines are at WP:NCOLLATH, and Gladden also fails here, as there is little to no national media attention as required by the guideline. (In fact, other than reports of her death, there is little media coverage at all). Wikipeterproject (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. 78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The EuroCup Women, in which she has participated for several years, is such a competition. Please do at least a bit of research before nominating an article. You've already edited your rationale ~~five~~ four times after nominating the article, which is quite a hint you haven't done that. --78.53.135.178 (talk) 07:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From what I can gather, the Eurocup is a second tier competition and participation therein would therefore would not generally meet WP notability standards. As far as exposure and national media coverage goes, I think a simple Google news search almost speaks for itself here. The amount of editing of my nomination is irrelevant, since this is a question of notability as per WP guidelines, not how well one can draft a nomination. Note also that I have not made changes to the nomination rationale after anyone commented on it. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First, your nomination was solely based on her high school career, then on her college career. So you were still ignoring the teams listed in the infobox and the external links of the article. If you don't take into account the teams she had played for in recent years, that just is a poorly executed nomination. Second, yes it is a second tier competion, but on European level, in which only those teams can participate that have won their respective national championship or that have placed among the top teams of the best national leagues in Europe. Another supranational league Gladden (as a member of the Partizan squad) had participated in is the MŽRKL, which they won that year. Many of Gladden's former team mates play for their respective national teams, and some already are covered by Wikipedia articles. Also note that the EuroCup is played during the WNBA off season, and many WNBA players take part in it as well. Concerning news - well, if the level of competition she has played in is high enough, I don't see that as a problem, as long as there is the possibility for proper verification. --78.53.135.178 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Observation: I can't find a single WP article for any player whose highest level of competition is the Eurocup Women. Wikipeterproject (talk) 03:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Even at more than 4 million articles, there still are areas of interest that are largely uncovered by Wikipedia yet, so that in itself doesn't tell you anything. Expansion always has to start somewhere. If someone plays with and against national team members and WNBA players (i.e., those who play at the highest competition level possible in women's basketball) on a regular basis, I don't see the inherent difference between her and them concerning notability. A pan-European competition isn't comparable to high school or college basketball with its big spreads of skill levels. While being part of the country's biggest multi sports club (as in the case of Partizan Belgrade) certainly helps a bit, these teams aren't funded by major institutions like universities, so teams not performing at "major professional" levels usually couldn't even afford travelling through Europe for just one game each. --78.53.134.187 (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You have valid points, but they aren't in line with the current policy. Even factoring in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, in my personal opinion, her achievements aren't encyclopedically notable. Transcendence (talk) 23:59, 8 May 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 · · 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NCOLLATH. Transcendence (talk) 23:56, 8 May 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, J04n(talk page) 23:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, the nominator is correct in pointing that the subject fails the letter of the NBASKETBALL guideline, but in my view EuroCup Women is an international competition even more important/significant than a national championship and still reflects the spirit of the guideline. Cavarrone (talk) 05:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, and I have discounted the sole "Delete" vote as independent coverage has been found in spades. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australians in Film[edit]

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

The article claims to be about an organization, but I can find no independent sources to back up its notability as an organization. I'm also concerned that it claims to be back by the Australian government, but the domain registration is to a person living in New York, NY, USA [32]. I am One of Many (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an advert, unless some independent coverage can be found to hint at any notability. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "COULD" be a viable list article that may be maintained through regular editing. While current sourcing is lacking, if properly focused and changed to either List of Australian actors or List of Australian filmmakers, properly sourced, and set to include only those determinable as notable, this list article can support such as List of former child actors from Australia, List of current child actors from Australia, and List of Australian film directors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some relevant press coverage may possibly be found at the Fairfax News Store Paul foord (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Altenatively, if not changed into a list article, as a TOPIC, the organization appears to be subject of or part of enough coverage to meet WP:ORG and be an article that would benefit the project with just a bit of editorial oversite:

Sydney Morning Herald May 25, 2004

MSNBC September 26, 2008

Business Wire May 28, 2008

The Age May 11, 2009

USA Today June 10, 2008

Courier Mail May 5, 2007

Westside Today April 4, 2009

Sydney Morning Herald May 12, 2006

KATU June 23, 2008

Reading Eagle November 6, 2008

The Age January 14, 2005

X17 Online June 6, 2008

Chicago Tribune June 7, 2008

Ok! Magazine September 29, 2008

While we might end up starting from scratch, it appears to be a notable organization and worthy of inclusion. As a topic, this BRAND NEW ARTICLE simply needs some attention by experienced editors so as to best serve Wikipedia. When its contributor is blocked for choosing the organization's name as his username, he can be advised to pick a better username and then to study those essays developed for new contributors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good job of tracking this down! It turns out that there is a .org [33] website, which is the right age and has the expected registration information [34] and then there is a .com [35] website, which appears identical but the registration information doesn't look right [36] and it was registered more recently than the articles above. So, I know believe that the organization is legit and notable and I'm willing to withdraw the nomination for a speedy keep.--I am One of Many (talk) 04:44, 18 May 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. Came across this whilst patrolling CSD and agree it meets A7. Closing this as a delete decision. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Blake[edit]

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

Maybe I am not looking hard enough, but I cannot find any WP:RS to support the WP:GNG of this article. There are 2 books that I can find on Amazon.com, but this simply shows he is an author (or pen name) and does not establish notability. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP, no evidence of notability. I flagged the article Engineer's Spell for deletion a couple of years ago, and this has brought it back to my attention, and I think it also deserves an afd. (Done.) Despite WP:AGF I suspect self-publicity in both articles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably by speedy A7 Neither the author nor any of his books is even in worldcat. Apparently self-published, and writing self published books is not a plausible claim to notability . DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll try tagging it as an A7 due to the books only being self-published, but I don't know if it'd qualify under that. In any case, this is a clear cut case of no notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 19 May 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. Tone 11:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lehigh Valley Grand Prix[edit]

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

Non-notable commercial facility. Fails WP: GNG. ^{Alles Klar,} Herr Kommisar 00:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G11 and A7 corp. Mkdw ^talk 05:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Since Lehigh Valley Grand Prix is not only the name of the facility but also of the corporation that owns it, A7 is applicable. —teb728 t c 23:29, 19 May 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 Pearson Language Tests. Despite the small participation, the merge seems obvious enough. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PTE General[edit]

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

Merge to Pearson Language Tests; already merged some of the content. The test is interesting, but not stand alone notable at this time, suggest making it under the Pearson unit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:14, 10 May 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) 00:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the nominator and per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearson Test of English Academic. The parent company is notable; the individual tests are not. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 17 May 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aynur Toleuova[edit]

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

No verifiable sources and references, also fails notability guidelines for biographical articles. Cheetah255 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She held a national beuty pageant title, generally this is considered enough to make someone notable. There are sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 11 May 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) 00:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep as a winner of a national beauty pageant title. Mabalu (talk) 00:48, 21 May 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 Pearson Language Tests. J04n(talk page) 21:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PTE Young Learners[edit]

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

Merge to Pearson Language Tests. Not notable enough for stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:11, 10 May 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) 00:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the nominator and per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearson Test of English Academic. The parent company is notable; the individual tests are not. Cnilep (talk) 02:12, 17 May 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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 21:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Smiles: The Rare Singles[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a musical recording. No evidence of notability per WP:NALBUMS. - Mr X 01:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:16, 3 May 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:54, 10 May 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) 00:10, 17 May 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 RightNow Technologies. (non-admin closure) Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 09:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q-go[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Only one in-line ref which is now a dead-link. Other external links are either dead, press releases or have a very tangential connection. Fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. czar · · 14:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found it trivially easy to find the dead link on the WSJ. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:23, 7 May 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:57, 10 May 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) 00:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with RightNow Technologies. Praemonitus (talk) 04:09, 17 May 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. L Faraone 00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

247Sports.com[edit]

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

No clear notabililty; lacking sources. Flamebait Chris Troutman (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I marked it that it needs more sources and some other stuff. Bobherry talk 03:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a source.Bobherry talk 03:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of providing links to the forum in question will make it notable. The content speaks for itself. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to say it but DELETE. Theres just to much vandlism. Bobherry talk 04:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Too much vandalism isn't a good reason for deletion: please see WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. It lacks WP:Secondary sources but claims notability on the basis of a content deal with CBS. I can see some coverage online, so will try to reference it better. Notability is weak so far. Captain Conundrum (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article now credibly demonstrates notability with multiple secondary WP:RS. Captain Conundrum (talk) 10:04, 10 May 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) 00:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Weak delete~~, though I'm genuinely torn. Of the 7 sources currently provided, the first three use information provided by the subject, they are not about the subject, certainly not significant coverage. The last is from the subject itself, so obviously not independent. Of the three that remain, two are from the same source (Sports Business Daily), considered one source for the purposes of notability and the other (Sports Illustrated) is written by someone who works for the subject and ends with a promotional link to the subject site. Really, the only sources that would be considered independent and significant coverage of the subject would be the two from the same writer at the Sports Business Daily, still considered one source. That's not multiple, secondary WP:RS in my book. I was able to find this article from the Nashville Business Journal, though it basically just confirms what is in the SBD and that's a little "one event" for me. But I'll say this - it won't take much to convince me. One more decent RS that gives significant coverage to the subject (preferably not about the CBS deal) and we'll be there I reckon. Stalwart111 04:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? This article from the Sports Business Daily is different to the content of the Nashville Business Journal, even if the other SBD article is about the same thing. So that's two different stories in two different sources (not "one event") with significant coverage across the three. That's enough for me. I'll add that source to the article and I've changed my !vote above. Stalwart111 04:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, no reliable sources, in addition to the arguments of the nominator.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jimboomba Thunder[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. an amateur sporting club in a junior amateur league. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:13, 10 May 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) 00:09, 17 May 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. L Faraone 00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choreplay[edit]

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

WP:NN Neologism. Appears to be being used by one TV journalist only. Both sources are from that guy. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:09, 11 May 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) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good information, but not really enough for its own article. Could be merged elsewhere. BayShrimp (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's some slightly relevant articles/sections: French maid and a section Uniform fetishism#French maid uniform and I thought we would have something about the naked male cleaning services popular in Germany but I can't see anything right now. I'm not sure a merge to any of those targets is called for, but if there's a better discussion about cleaning/housework fetishism anywhere, a merge might work. As said above, not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that an article on "Housework and sex" would run into AfD problems. Although one time I did wash all the floors and.... -BayShrimp (talk) 00:05, 18 May 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.