The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pearson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

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

Not notable, fails WP:BIO and clearly PR trash Phatwa (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - clearly badly written but are you suggesting that the subject is not notable even with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Stalwart111 02:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing then? Stalwart111 01:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO, MyVoucherCodes is according to Alexa the 8th largest voucher code site in the UK, doesn't warrant an article simply because the owner has a PR firm working for him. 86.151.48.68 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — 86.151.48.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Weak Delete maybe merge with Vouchers article as addendum. 94.0.231.65 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — 94.0.231.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• delete -- I do not think a company with 100 employees is likely to be notable, and that is all he has done. If there is a company page, we might have merged something there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it doesn't really matter whether the company has started has 10 employees, 100 employees or 100,000 employees. What matters is whether there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. That the article needs some editing to ensure compliance with WP:MOS and to prevent it from being/becoming a PR hack job is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. The immediate attention from two SPA IPs (one of which seems to be connected to the nominator here) suggests this nomination is based on something other than trying to improve the project. Stalwart111 01:43, 15 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:GNG, which is the relevant guideline. Statistics such as number of employees or current popularity of a website would only indicate whether a business is likely to be notable, not determine whether it is or not, and this article isn't even about the business. Peter James (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City Nord[edit]

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

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

Deprodded with "ample reliable sources out there", but I was unable to find any. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at the moment there are three sources in the article from three separate news sources, which all discuss the shopping mall as a news item, not in trivial passing mention. Other recent news: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. An offline search in printed newspapers found half a dozen news items about the mall (again, not passing mention) just from the past week. With such an abundance of sources there is seems clear that the article passes WP:GNG. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per sources added to the article and upon a review of those presented above by User:Arsenikk. For more easily-found additional sources, select the Google News link at this header of this AfD discussion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - when I first noticed that it was PRODed, I thought "if it's the biggest shopping mall in Nordland, it has to be notable". Fortunately, Arsenikk and Manxruler has done some work with the article to show why it is notable, and the sources presented in this AfD by Arsenikk is more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Up until November last year it was even the largest shopping centre in all of Northern Norway. Manxruler (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blart (character)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Non-notable fictional characters. No independent reliable sources establish that any of these characters are notable separately from the fiction in which they appear. Fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:PLOT since they amount to plot descriptions of the character's actions within the fiction and WP:FICT for failing to include any discussion of the characters from an out-of-universe perspective. Articles have been tagged for references and other issues for anywhere from four to seven years but the articles can't be improved because the sources simply don't exist. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Doing searches on The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, and the BBC results in almost no hits at all. In desperation, I also tried a few U.S. papers, such as The New York Times, and I still got almost nothing. Unless I seriously misspelled the author's name, I'm thinking these books really aren't very popular. The characters could be redirected or merged to the novels (or a list of characters created), but I'm just not seeing any notability at all here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. The existing one-paragraph character entries in the book article is sufficient. If someone wants to expand into long detail see Wikia for fan sites. If Blart has crossed over into mainstream culture in some way like the similar Bart Simpson it would be different but not seeing sources to support that case for Blart. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge them all into a single Blart (characters). We seem to have an article on each of a series of novels. I suspect that they and my proposed characters article might all conveniently merged into a single Blart (the novel series). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 14 November 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 Phil Harris (fisherman). Redirects are cheap, article content can still be retrieved from history in case somebody wants to merge any of it into Phil Harris (fisherman). (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Reserve[edit]

Captain's Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. May be worth a redirect to Phil Harris (fisherman), but doesn't seem to be a notable topic. Boleyn (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A venture which became a successsion of dead links rather than becoming notable. AllyD (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect Don't see why it can't be mentioned in the guy's article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect Not notable enough for a separate article, but definitely belongs as a subheading of the article on Phil Harris (fisherman). Kenneaal (talk) 02:16, 14 November 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrian Apostol[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. No reason for contesting was given. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, standard non-notable footballer reasons. Fenix down (talk) 22:33, 13 November 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 speedily deleted by User:RHaworth per CSD G8. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michel phaneuf[edit]

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

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

Incorrect language Tritario (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Michel Phaneuf, with a capital P, has already been speedy deleted A2. I've tagged Michel phaneuf, the redirect, as a candidate for G8. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Murdock[edit]

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

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

Non notable individual, part of a series of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT articles by COI editor to seek to promote her client whose article is also at AfD. The references in the article do not bear out his notability, just his existence. Several are primary sources, potentially administered by the article creator Fiddle Faddle 17:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing notable, as Fiddle Faddle pointed out. Worse yet, this particular article appears to be an attempt to make the subject Murdock look bad, orchestrated by a "represenative" of an ex (at AfD), who is also creating a page for her "client" that is under discussion for deletion for non-notability. Rockypedia (talk) 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If we assume good faith then this person doesn't come close to meeting notability guidelines. If it was created as an attack page (and the edit history doesn't look good for that, in my opinion, but not so bad I'm willing to call it) then a Speedy G10 would be appropriate, as this is BLP.--Talain (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have chosen to assume good faith. There are references that appear to portray the gentleman's behaviour as less than pleasant, so I considered it was possibly adequate in that regard. I have no quarrel with G10 though. I'd like us to be rid of this article anyway. Fiddle Faddle 22:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not only fails WP:BIO, but it looks like it is an elaborate attack page. We also received a request to delete the article via OTRS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Can anyone looking at this well-sourced article, explain how WP:BASIC is somehow not met? (IE: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.") If WP:BASIC is met, then issues with creator are put aside and we look to WP:HANDLE, which encourages improvement through regular editing... and not deletion of arguably notable topics. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll take a stab at this one. WP:BASIC also says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I would argue that this subject's coverage counts as trivial. A matter of opinion, I know, but I see no conflict between following WP:BASIC and recommending a delete for this article. Rockypedia (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: Understanding and following the instructions at WP:BASIC does not prevent anyone from offering their own interpretation of guideline and spousing a delete... it's just that a closer will weigh policy and guideline based arguments. 14 people can state "delete" and only one or two a "keep", and still have a closer evaluate a topic based upon policy and guideline and come up with a keep. AFD is not as head count. Guideline tells us "a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject," and yes, also states "if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Expanding, 1) "substantial" is not the same as "significant" coverage and 2) "may not" does not mean the same as "is not". Read WP:ADHOM. We should not paint all of a newcomer's contributions as automatically bad simply because that person lacks clue. In expanding my own expanded searches, I have found multiple independent sources discussing this topic directly and in detail... NOT trivial. WP:NRVE is met. WP:GNG is met. WP:BIO is met through WP:BASIC. THAT is what a closer will consider... not a weight of numbers. And toward the nomination's WP:VANISPAM argument, while it tends to instill an instant negativity toward a topic, essays are not valid deletion rationales. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My last response: While I respect your very obvious passion for keeping this article, to the point of making arguments against points that no one has even raised, I still can't see how this subject is any more notable than, say, you or I. When I click on the 'Find Sources' link for Mr. Murdock, I see the same thing that I see when I google my own name: a facebook page, "Justin is throwing a party", etc. If that counts as sources discussing Mr. Murdock directly and in detail, well, hell, I guess it's time for me to get a publicist and have them work on my article. ---- I'm joking, of course, as after doing some homework, I still don't see anything that raised Mr. Murdock to any level of notability. Rockypedia (talk) 05:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response: I have no "passion" for keeping or deleting this new article, but simply wish that policy and guideline be applied evenly and without animus toward its newbie author or his errors. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep I did my homework before taking this stance. WP:BASIC is met. The suggested WP:CSD#G10 describes speedy criteria of "attack pages" which "may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced." The article presents its information neutrally and is well-sourced. OTRS is well and good, but if John Hinckley were to request through OTRS that the page about him be deleted because it described negative aspects of his life, we'd look to coverage and respectfully decline that request. We need to be just as careful in deleting as we are in allowing topics, and apply policy reasonably and evenly. Any G10 should be declined, as the properly-sourced article is not libelous (information is available outside of Wikipedia in multiple reliable sources), nor does it make legal threats, nor does it present information intended only to harass or intimidate a person (though the subject himself may not like his life being written of within these pages), nor is it "entirely negative in tone and unsourced". Sorry Hinckley. Sorry Murdock. We only neutrally report within these pages that which is covered in more detail elsewhere. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:54, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As this is an AfD, and not an attempted Speedy, I fail to see why your argument that it would not be deleted in that fashion is an argument to maintain it here. What is the rationale behind your decision here with regards to the issue of notability?--Talain (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you suggested the G10 above and another seconded your suggestion, my "rationale" is that a suggestion that WP:AFD discussion process somehow be circumvented required a response. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 13:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely promotional article about non-notable individual. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Heir to a billionaire fortune, businessman and philanthropist. The article needs more referenced info, but it is a work in progress. Simply deleting his page because he is privileged does not make sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree that if John Hinckley were to request deletion he would be turned down, but this guy's notability is marginal at best, and I think it is a case where WP:BIODELETE applies: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete." JohnCD (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not yet notable. Perhaps he will be when he actually inherits the money. For now, I woulds delete the article regardless of what the subject might want. The option to take account of the subject's preference should be used only for exceptional cases. DGG ( talk ) 23:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

They can't all be zingers. The individual songs are notable, of course, but I see no reason to believe that this compilation is. The internetz are full of listings and points of sale, but nothing in the way of reviews or significant discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete notability is not inherited. The songs may be notable, but there re no signs this compilation is. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It'll be released soon - wont it chart and therefore meet the notability standards? Found this too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in the requirements suggests that charting in and of itself makes an album notable. Despite their popularity, few, if any, of the individual volumes receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "significant" is a weasel-word bounded about here with no real meaning. All these seem to hit the #1 spot on notable charts, and I suspect this one will too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is a sign that an album MAY be notable enough for an article, not that it IS notable enough. If there is no coverage, and this article can never be expanded past a stub, then it should be deleted (along with 1-85 too imo) Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the argument either way for keep/deletion, and possibly agree that the others don't really cut it. But deleting an article as it can never get past stub-state would get rid of 90% or more of the articles on here! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Surely it's got to be a keep. Every other album in the series has a page! Cls14 (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And? Drmies (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's mostly a list linking other articles, rather than an article in itself, so even if it doesn't really meet the article criteria, it does meet the list criteria. It is a good list because it won't be added to in the future, it links to many articles on records, and may in a few years time be of historical interest to someone interesting in popular music. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting interpretation of "article". Rename the article, then, "List of songs on Now That's What I Call Music! 86 (UK series)". Sorry, but I don't buy this at all. And as a list, it's directory information that could be handled in the main article with a link to the company website, which lists these things comprehensively (and sells them, I suppose). Drmies (talk) 19:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. It is not only an interesting interpretation, it is an entirely logical interpretation as well. The article is fine, as a list, yes, it doesn't matter whether you buy it or not it is principally a list. It's better to keep readers inside the wiki rather than having them go to the publisher's website, then come back to Wikipedia to look up the songs listed. Bit daft your suggestion isn't it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. It's an article on an album, and WP:NALBUMS applies. It's not a list. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even as a hypothetical list, it would fail WP:LISTN in the same way it fails WP:NALBUMS. (Additionally as a list, I would claim its probably laregely a duplicate of List_of_UK_Singles_Chart_number_ones_of_the_2010s#2013. The series of albums probably crosses some threshhold of notability, so all of the articles could be merged into a Now thats what I call musik (UK series article, that had inline lists for every year (similar to the "episodes of tv show X" articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because every song is a clear pass of the GNG. Now you could make some argument about inheriting, but inheriting works towards *finer* granularity, and this is clearly the other way. It doesn't make sense to merge the album into the songs... You cannot have a book that is famous, but an author that is not. Even if the author is famous only for that one book, it is still the author article that should be kept, and the book one included in that.  The Steve  18:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if a book was published that was a just a collection of notable books from other notable authors, it would not be notable unless it received independent coverage in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your assertion that inheritance refers only to finer granularity is flatly contradicted by the WP:NALBUMS text "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. Conversely, an album does not need to be by a notable artist or ensemble to merit a standalone article if it meets the general notability guideline." It is also flatly contradicted by WP:NOTINHERIT "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable; not every organization to which a notable person belongs (or which a notable person leads) is itself notable." This portion of the guideline is also directly applicable to this article " Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting."Gaijin42 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really?! That's not what I read: (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances). As for your other point, I think it would be extremely difficult to find a famous album that did not make the artist famous. I will admit that my opinion of upwards inheritance (song to singer, book to author, game to publisher, product to manufacturer etc) is slightly more generous than consensus.  The Steve  18:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coverage here and here. As it's released today, there will be more too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant keep. No doubt this will chart at #1 at the end of the week (as have all the previous 85 volumes) which gives it certain notability. I am weary however of these lazy articles being created where no effort is put in to clarify why this particular volume is in any way interesting to read about. I guess the creators just like to add it to their list of "articles created", when all they've really done is written a tracklisting. Other than it reaching No.1 in the charts, is there anything interesting to say about this album? Tedious.Tuzapicabit (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I have added information that it contains an exclusive mix of one of the songs, a mix which appears to be unavailable anywhere else. BillyH 19:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As Tuzapicabit says, it seems inevitable that this album will top the UK Compilation Chart this weekend. I'd also put money on it being the UK's best-selling compilation album of the year. For these reasons, I feel that this album is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can you justify having 85 Articles and them missing one?194.74.237.82 (talk) 16:59, 21 November 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.

Identical (film)[edit]

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

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

Part of a series of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT edits by a COI editor to seek to publicise her client. The client's article is also at AfD. Fiddle Faddle 17:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep and improve per available sources (modified - see far below). Such has begun and much more is possible. It is far better to address issues in a brand new article than it is to toss a notable topic because its new author does not understand that Wikipedia is not to be used for advert. The topic is fixable. Seeing how it is done could also act to educate a newb on our ways. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would require a fundemental rewrite to make this follow guidelines. I am not sure it meets GNG at any rate. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I respect Fiddle Faddle's wish to improve the project by simply deleting content from problematic new contributors, my own thought for this brand new article is that under WP:DEADLINE and WP:PERFECT it can be fixed to serve the project AND educate the newcomer... and such is being done even as you choose to vote delete. No need to blow it up when it is eventually fixable. Yes, the film is nowhere near as notable as Star Wars or Harry Potter projects, but all we need is something just notable enough to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:51, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a deletionist by nature but i am not opposed to userfication if it can be fixed. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough... and perhaps this brand new article can be improved enough over the next few day so even that will not be required. Best, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I searched Google for a while, looking for any evidence that this film is available to purchase, stream, or watch it in any conceivable way, and the only thing I found was the trailer. There's no evidence that it was ever in theaters, either. It definitely played at a couple of film festivals, but unless I'm mistaken, that's not enough to establish notability. Despite the claims made in the article, it appears this project is dead, and has been reviewed by no one, according to RT. Rockypedia (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the notability guidelines for films: "films produced in the past, which were... not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." This film was apparently undistributed (I don't believe festivals count as distribution). I don't see anything about it that would make its failure notable. Therefore, I believe it's a delete all the way. Rockypedia (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate your view, but films do not have to have theatrical distribution in order to meet WP:NF. Festival and even direct-to-video can count. The important criteria for any topic is coverage in sources... and we do not expect nor demand that notability be earth-shattering. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 15:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed that direct-to-video can count, I just couldn't find any sources that even indicated that this film had been distributed in any direct-to-video format, be it Redbox, Netflix, etc... nothing. I did see an interview where someone associated with the film CLAIMED it was going to be distributed via those methods... but nothing saying that that actually happened. So I guess my question is, with just a couple of festival showings, is this film notable enough to have its own article? I'm still a no on that one. Rockypedia (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I find it interesting that http://www.identicalthemovie.com/ is a site the movie producers are so proud of that it has gone offline, only to be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20111016150323/http://www.identicalthemovie.com/ (You have to peers to see the yellow links on the page). This, surely, cannot be a notable movie. Fiddle Faddle 10:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Utterly non-notable film with an utterly non-notable cast. No reviews according to Rotten Tomatoes, and a Google-search returns nothing but primary sources. What's next on WP, articles about "films" created as part of high school projects? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:32, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is dependent upon coverage, not project. While many minor films do not make the cut, some few do... even if "just barely". Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is dependent on coverage in independent secondary sources, of which there are none. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Along with Schmidt, methinks insta-deletion is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Some sources do seem to exist. Wikipedia does not require that a film be a summer blockbuster; Ed Asner is of course Notable, and although notability is not inheritable on wikipedia, his participation guarantees that the film has some press. Schmidt posted a link to UPI over on the AfD of Kelly_B, which I *think* I agree ought to be a redirect rather than a redlink. Actress seems to satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY though not yet WP:N. I will see if I can help improve the draft Schmidt is working on. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response. Line-by-line, if I may. There's no baby here, only bathwater. All sources for this film are primary sources. While Wikipedia doesn't require a film be a blockbuster, it does require some level of notability beyond "this is my art-house film that I'm trying to promote." Ed Asner, as you pointed out, doesn't make the film notable through inheritance, and his participation garnered the film exactly zero press, unless you count a single non-notable-film-festival page (itself trying to promote the film it was showing). Schmidt's entire agenda is to prove notability of every actor and every film ever created, perhaps to ensure that his own page is as far beyond the reaches of a deletion attempt as possible (don't worry, I think he's notable. Barely). At any rate, Thomas W is right, what's next, my own home videos being notable if I get a single film festival to show them and then engage in a PR blitz? Bad precedent to set. Rockypedia (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops... not all available sources are primary. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, there's citation that leads to UPI, which I recall used to be a news service, and is now an organization that accepts stories from anyone, including publicists, and will slap them up on their website with no attribution or regard for whether what they're publishing is even true. That's some reliable secondary source you're relying on. Rockypedia (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The reference pointing to UPI was revealed for what it is, a press release from the film company, on the now deleted article about Kelly Baugher. So it's a primary source that can not be used for establishing notability for the film. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is so far short of the general standard envisaged by WP:NF that it would require substantial, in-depth independent coverage to qualify for an article, and I don't see it. The references cited are: 1. A press release, 2. The founder of the festival talking about the film it's going to show, 3. Interview with the writer/director in IFQ, 4. Rotten Tomatoes entry showing no reviews. That's not enough. "Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." This wasn't a notable failure, it wasn't a notable anything. JohnCD (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak delete (modified stance from original keep) per research, research, research... and yes, post-1982 UPI sources should be investigated thoroughly. I have not been able to find any connection between the interview on Independent Film Quarterly and the filmmakers or production company. And Ed Asner's words quoted in AV Club do not seem spurious. Nor does the little blurb about this film in The New York Times under its original title of Bleecker Street seem fraught with cast, crew or production conflicts. That said and lacking notability for a separate article, we have enough verifiability that this title may be redirected-after-deletion to the Ed Asner filmography and have allowed mentions in a related articles. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 01:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Paradise[edit]

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

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

WP:GNG failure, just another NN fictional character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:14, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Characters from the Godfather series (or something). There are apparently a lot of these Godfather character articles that will need to be merged at some time due to being NN. Preserve rather than delete (for now). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable fictional character. My concern with merging into a list of characters is that it will inevitably end up being rehashes of the plot elements in which the characters were involved. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. There seems to be little consensus for the creation of a list of Godfather list of characters, but if someone does eventually create one, I see no reason why we can't start merging characters into it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changed vote from above. Looking more closely at these Godfather articles, it will best to address them one at a time. Creating a comprehensive single list of characters to replace these articles would be a large project, such a list would be its own work and no one has made such a list. Further, there is a Wikia article on this topic already that is arguably better, and seems to be more actively edited (recently) than this one. I guess this is part of the process of "moving" fan cruft from Wikipedia to Wikia (though nothing is moved in this case). There's also it will be saved at the Speedy Deletion Wikia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardelli[edit]

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

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

Advertisement for a chain of fashion boutiques in Mantua, Italy. Previously speedy deleted per CSD A7 and G11. Looks well referenced on the surface, but most of the references are about the brands the shops sell, not the shops themselves. The only references that mention the company are directory listings or affiliated companies. Searches for reliable source coverage come up empty. Borderline spam. Taking this to the community for consensus. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Ludicrous spam) Ian Spackman (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I concur with Ian Spackman, very spammy, and simply selling other people's merchandise does not confer notability. Mabalu (talk) 17:51, 18 November 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 Qatar University Stadium. There is no policy-compliant deletion rationale, hence redirect without prejudice for resurrection if significant reliable sources would become available. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 11:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar University Stadium (planned)[edit]

Qatar University Stadium (planned) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No References. Tritario (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - That it doesn't has any references is not a reason to delete an article. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the proposal is for the replacement of the existing Qatar University Stadium. Probably needs a redirect. Hack (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect - to Qatar University Stadium. GiantSnowman 12:46, 13 November 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensword 2: Shadowlands[edit]

Ravensword 2: Shadowlands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, non notable software. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is very notable. It was once top 10 paid games on the App Store, and it got greenlit to go to steam. I don't know how a non-notable piece of software could do that.--Adam9812 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no shortage of third party sources then? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The agree light on steam already has a source, but it wouldn't fit Wikipedia's style to say "The game even was top 10 in the App Store.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam9812 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Upon my searching, it looks like, while the original Ravensword would easily pass the WP:GNG requirements. (There's enough sources at it's Metacritic entry alone, see here.) However, that game doesn't appear to have any article. If it did, I'd recommend a redirect to it. As it is, I think this article will be (Wikipedia's definition) of notable someday, but it doesn't appear to be now. The only reliable source I can find on it is a Slide to Play preview. Sergecross73 msg me 18:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, the article seems to suggest that "Ravensword 2: Shadowlands", is often shortened to Ravensword: Shadowlands. If they're the same game, then its an easy "keep" due to plenty of sources being out there. Can someone confirm/deny this for me? Sergecross73 msg me 18:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensword Shadowlands And the original are indeed different games. I have played both. --Adam9812 (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the second is arguably more notable than the first. --Adam9812 (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would indeed make a difference and it appears you are correct "From the award winning studio that brought you Ravensword: The Fallen King and Aralon: Sword and Shadow, comes RAVENSWORD: SHADOWLANDS. " from [[8]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - (edit conflict) There is easily enough coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. I've gone and bulked up the reception section with 5 or so reviews, but there's plenty out there.
  • http://www.slidetoplay.com/previews/ravensword-2-hands-on-preview/
  • http://www.toucharcade.com/2012/12/19/ravensword-shadowlands-review/
  • http://www.slidetoplay.com/review/ravensword-shadowlands-review/
  • http://www.gamezebo.com/games/ravensword-shadowlands/review
  • http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/12/20/gorgeous-ravensword-shadowlands-trailer-immerses-you.aspx
  • http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2013/01/review-ravensword-shadowlands-ipad.html
  • http://toucharcade.com/2012/11/30/ravensword-shadowlands-hands-on-preview-and-video-the-next-big-ios-rpg-is-almost-here/
• There's many more out there too. Many of these have consensus on being reliable per discussions at WP:VG/S. The rest look reliable as far as I can tell. Sergecross73 msg me 19:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the evidence seems to be in favor of keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam9812 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These things usually run the course of 7 days unless the nominator withdraws the nomination, but I agree, it looks like a likely keep. It'd help if you gave a formal "Keep" !vote that relates more to Wikipedia policy, like the WP:GNG, though. Arguments relating to its status on the App Store or Steam are likely to be ignored by the closing Admin, since they don't relate to Wikipedia policy... Sergecross73 msg me 16:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as passing WP:GNG with in-depth (reviews) coverage by multiple independent reliable (WP:VG/RS sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:56, 17 November 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. Oh the weather outside is frightful...Secret ^account 15:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Baugher[edit]

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

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

I'm finding it very hard to see this as anything other than a pice of WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT created or edited by a self declared COI editor who has declared that the subject of the article is her client (this diff) about a non notable self styled socialite. I've had a look into some of the referencing and I find it vague in the extreme. It has a current edit war taking place. Even if it is about a notable person, something I feel to be unlikely despite the welter of supposed references, the best solution looks like starting all over again. I was tempted to use Speedy Deletion, but felt a consensus might be a better approach. Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fiddle Faddle has summed it up well. I was coming here to say pretty much the exact same things. "non notable self styled socialite" says it all; that's all this article is. Rockypedia (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As suspected the article as it stood at nomination was a morass of primary sources, irrelevant additional detail to seek to establish notability where none existed or to scrape notability by inheritance. Much of this is flagged, tidied and removed. And even with all this the article remains to be fluff, flannel and puffery. Fiddle Faddle 15:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Further inspection of the sources shows that some had no information at all. Those have been removed. The sole remaining references are Primary sources. Nothing indicates that the lady is notable. Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This seems an entirely straightforward lack of notability.--Talain (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now to Identical (film) per simply being TOO SOON for a separate article. Actress HAS been written of in reliable sources,[9][10][11] but almost all are about her being in that film. And at a related AFD, and despite the original author's apparent COI, I believe THAT article has enough merit to meet WP:NF and be corrected and retained. All that other needs is editorial attention from others... not deletion. Such gives us a suitable redirect target. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 02:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete does not appear to be a notable film Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Purely promotional article about non-notable individual. This is an encyclopaedia, not Facebook or LinkedIn. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 10:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Paid advocacy. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the nominator has said it all. All sources are tagged as primary. This is clearly an attempt to create notability. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ashwin Porwal[edit]

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

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

Apparently an autobiography. Notability is questionable, and would need a full rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing independent that justifies notability turns up, and ... he performed prolapse surgery on a 45-yo woman, that's novel. I haven't checked the article for copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 12 November 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Highway[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable product that hasn't even been released yet. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established by sources. WP:BALL #5. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - when it's released and gets substantial coverage, then it's time to consider an article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and not passing WP:GNG with in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, such as WP:VG/RS. It only has passing mentions and announcements, but nothing in-depth. It can be recreated with actual sources when the game is released (or if extensively covered). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ottilio Cuneo[edit]

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

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

Unremarkable fictional character - fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 12:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Characters from the Godfather series (or something). There are apparently a lot of these Godfather character articles that will need to be merged at some time due to being NN. Preserve rather than delete (for now). This will be the inaugural character for the list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Does not receive significant coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changed from vote above. See my comments in other Godfather AfD on same issue. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A handful of the Godfather characters are notable but this isn't one of them. Betty Logan (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pee Cola[edit]

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

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

Sources are not clearly reliable (e.g. Drizzyfinks.com) and the only assertion of notability is that its name is the same as the word for urine. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable, presumably a hoax. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wouldn't say it's a hoax because it seems "Pee" is a common surname there and simply another odd name in another language. But then again, it's a little known company considering there's not even any information about when it was founded. I was thinking that it seemed this cola must've faded away because I haven't found much with Google News and only business directories/yellow pages with Google Books. It's possible the 2000 controversy in addition to the odd name affected the company somehow. Because English is the official language of Ghana, I would expect everything would be in English. Searches at Ghanaian newspaper provided nothing so basically there's nothing to improve this article. The winetimes.co link even says "It was last seen on the market in early 2000 and no one really knows what happened to the cola" so it may have indeed ended the company. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not enough coverage to warrant an article. Perhaps a mention in a list somewhere. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David Tonks[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NBIO. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- clearly NN. Bishops are notable; deans sometimes, but this man has done nothing notable yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Schmitt (lawyer)[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom, subject is not notable, lacking sufficient coverage to trace and describe the subject. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject's published dissertation and subsequent career as a lecturer and then working lawyer do not appear to provide evidence of biographical notability. (For anyone searching, it is worth noting that this person was not the German constitutional theorist and law professor, on whom much secondary literature has been published over the past 25 years.) AllyD (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing my standards. Sadly, it appears he did not live long enough to get tenured or to publish such a body of work as to be noted as an expert. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Kempster[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As per nom, WP is not a directory Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Pletzers[edit]

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

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

Not notable. Books are self published or small press (Smashwords, Triskaideka Books, Dark Continents , BBS Press, Writers Press LTD, Panic Press UK [12]) and lack reviews. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per nbook, a book must have a number of sales, reviews, coverage, references, homages to be notable, thus this book fails these issues. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AUTHOR #3, books don't have multiple reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Black[edit]

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

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

Not notable. As with the prod, "Minor local politicians and their sordid activities are not notable. Note that fully half of the references relate not to the subject but to their one-time partner." Lacks significant coverage about Black in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Another article about st peter college crew? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with OP. Not notable as with prod. Acalycine ^talk 06:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Turner (academic)[edit]

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

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

Not notable. [13]. (not Stephen Turner of University of South Florida). Lacks coverage about him in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Searching in GS for "Stephen Turner" auckland I get an h-index of 7. Not quite enough for WP:Prof#C1: not much else. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Hasn't had any books published, lack of 3rd-party coverage, fails to meet WP:PROF. Run of the mill academic with fewer achievements than many. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:07, 13 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't yet meet WP:PROF nor is there the necessary reliable source coverage to meet WP:BIO. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:42, 24 November 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 George Perris. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Un Souhait[edit]

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

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

Not notable: can't find any reliable sources discussing this album. RadioFan PRODded the article back in February and GiantSnowman deleted it as Un souhait (without capital 'S'), but it then got recreated without sources. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to George Perris. While the singer has notability, it seems that his music does not. There are no useful reviews or significant mentions that I can find. Perhaps surprising, given that many of the collaborators on this album seem to be quite noteworthy in their own right. Nevertheless, the title does not require disambiguation and may serve as a plausible redirect term. SuperMarioMan 03:06, 20 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:34, 22 November 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 policy-based rationale for retention. LFaraone 01:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tori index[edit]

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

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

Non-notable index. Article has one reference, in which this index was proposed. According to Google Scholar, this article has been cited exactly once. Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I found another source, [14] but two sources does not notability make. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Riq index and discussion of both of these articles at Talk:h-index. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is a valuable piece of information about one of the few indices, if any, designed to account for the bias of the self-citations. The fact that NASA ADS has implemented it is a clear manifestation of its relevance. And also a blog by the American Physical Society is enough. 40BOG40 (talk) 10:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with User:40BOG40. On the Internet I found researchers posting their tori and riq in their online curriculum. I have also to say that in Wikipedia I have seen a host of other indices which does not deal with self-citations. Keeping it would be a good sign to the community that one take seriously the impact of autociting. Thus, Keep. Danguard00 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is absolutely not the only index that corrects for self-citations: the Web of Science presents citation rates (including the h-index) both corrected and uncorrected for self-citations. Not that this matters much: what we find important or not really is not of importance here. That the index itself has been cited just once in the scientific literature says more about the fact that this has not (yet?) found any acceptance in the community. --Randykitty (talk) 07:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish to keep it. The indices by Web of Science are not freely available and have not been implemented by NASA ADS. For me, the fact that there is only one citation to the article is not significant. There are other means to make an idea of the diffusion and influence of an idea, etc. For example, also the number of readers, downloads, etc. as those provided by NASA ADS and PLOSone itself. And, to me, the goal of tori and riq is of the highest relevance. I suggest the qualified contributors of Wikipedia to systematically add tori and riq to the articles of scientists, when available. Referee23 (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, like the other comments above, this is not a policy-based argument (see WP:ILIKEIT). I am quite certain that WP will not start including numbers of downloads and all kinds of other indexes. At this point, the only widely-accepted measures are the impact factor, number of citations for a paper, and the h-index. (BTW, unless a researcher publishes lots of papers and cites all of his previously-published ones in all of them, these figures are hard to game by self-citations). The tori and riq indexes will most certainly not be added to any biographies until they are more widely accepted in the field than the ones I just mentioned (and even mentioning someone's h-index is not uncontroversial here). That NASA ADS has implemented them is nice, but that database covers just a very small part of academia and leaves out many other fields (life sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.). In short, up till now not a single one of the "keep" !votes is policy based, so unless you come up with a better argument, they will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 18 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The main claim to notability for this bibliometric is usage by the major database Astrophysics Data System. This database is undoubtedly a reliable secondary source, but at present, it is the only one. I've been unable to find a second source; an APS blog doesn't count as reliable for me. This may fall under WP:TOOSOON; not enough time has elapsed for notability to develop. This doesn't preclude the development of a bibliometrics section in the Astrophysics Data System article to discuss this and other metrics used at ADS. No prejudice to recreation when multiple in depth reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I have struck the votes of User:Referee23 and User:40BOG40 as they are blocked as sockpuppets of User:Danguard00. LFaraone 01:16, 25 November 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus PEN E-PM1[edit]

Olympus PEN E-PM1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I successfully PRODed this article in January 2012 on general notability grounds. An editor requested restoration and the article was restored from deletion today. I will go ahead and nominate for deletion, again on notability grounds. Article is unsourced and a Google search doesn't give me anything that sets this camera apart from the crowd for notability. Additionally the article clearly violates WP:NPOV and reads very much as praise and almost as an advertisement. The comment that led to the article restoration is here Talk:Olympus PEN E-PM1 as well as my response to that comment. Safiel (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable, and reads almost like an advertisement. I couldn't find any reliable sources, either. Lugia2453 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Although people may have been confused by the variety of different names applied to this camera, there's no shortage of reliable sources in print and online[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Since there are no specific notability guidelines for cameras or products, WP:GNG applies, which is met. Having said that, the current article is poor: unreferenced, lacking in hard information or 3rd-party coverage, full of vague unsupported assertions, inappropriate in tone for an encyclopedia, and close to advertising, so it would have to be almost entirely rewritten. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unsourced ad. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's a notable product (or group of products)and it is informative not promotional. I agree with Colape nisula that it is in need of major rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I did a bit of rewriting, foregrounding expert reviews as per WP:SNOWFLAKE. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good enough after improvements. Merging the whole series of cameras into one article might be best. --Michig (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Grushecky[edit]

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

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

Non-neutral biography, no third-party sources, Wikipedia not for promotion Mwbeatty (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The promotional qualities of the article are problematic, but the subject also appears to be quite notable. I would say Keep and clean up. Hedge trimmers okay with me. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but revert to an earlier version of the article such as [23] before the recently added promotional content. If nothing else, Grushecky is known for his collaborations with Bruce Springsteen, and he could be shown to satisfy WP:MUSIC if not for the inappropriate promotional content which was added in the last month or so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found that substantially all of the promotional version added last month had been copied from the artist's official website. I've removed that content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable per coverage in HuffPo, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Rolling Stone. Jinkinson talk to me 16:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Riley (fighter)[edit]

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

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

MMA fighter who fails to meet WP:NMMA with only 2 top tier fights and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 05:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only two top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA. Into the Rift (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:24, 14 November 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, default to delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Owens[edit]

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

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

Yet another fishy autobiography of a barely notable person. Article creator Chrowe3 appears to be in a conflict-of-interest. bender235 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt please. Not notable, apparent autobiography, deleted twice before for similar reasons. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep. The Daily Mail and Venture Beat articles easily satisfy the requirement in WP:GNG for multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Note also that neither of these sources had been published by the time of the previous AfDs. Finally, WP:COI is a content issue, not a reason to delete, especially as most editors are anonymous. Every claim in an article has to be backed up by published sources, no matter who wants it in there for what reason, or it's subject to removal anyway. Msnicki (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I think there's enough coverage to warrant inclusion per guidelines. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• At best Weak keep -- An IT prodigy, but will he last? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make a compelling point that this may be a story of only passing or local interest. Msnicki (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've had this article watchlisted for about two years and I've had to revert a series of BLP violations (negative material from self-published sources) from it during that that time. Fortunately this seem to have died down recently but there's no way of knowing whether it's stopped for good. The assertion of notability is largely based on one Daily Mail article, a source whose reliability has been questioned at WP:RSN many times, and one fairly brief article in a technology blog. At best it's borderline and I can't see the benefit in keeping a problematic low-notability BLP. January (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It'll be hard to make this much more than a start-class article, but there is repeated mention in RS. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Barney the barney barney - Non notable autobiography. -Davey2010T 23:54, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. There's also a Gizmodo article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment (cos I voted above) - a crucial point here is the availability of future sources. Basically, what happens if he achieves anything else in his life - will there be sources reporting that? More specifically, and hopefully looking at the long term, what will happen when he dies? Will there be any coverage? A the moment, he' has his 15 minutes of fame and there might not be any more. Sourcing for this isn't the worst I've seen, but there's a lot of tech coverage, much of it extremely trivial, a flash in the pan, and not entirely reliable. Finally, we really have a duty to protect people, especially minors, from them wanting a biography, because if you're not very notable, having a Wikipedia article isn't a great idea. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is something of a WP:BLP1E. The three sources discussed here are all dated from between June and August 2010 when he was 15/16 and he clearly got this coverage because of his age, his activities when he is older are far less likely to attract coverage without that novelty. January (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. Although the subject is continuing with momentum from the debut business, he's apparently not been substantially reported on in connection with this continuing work. Therefore, there's not enough in the way of reliable, independent sources on which to found the article. I did locate a couple of other articles from 2010, but they also concern themselves with the subject's activites at that time (primarily related to his relatively young age).[24][25] -- Trevj (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:BLP1E and comments by Trevj and January. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 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. Feel free to speedy renominate for deletion if you wish! SarahStierch (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loyaltyworks[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH; only one of the refs is more than a passing mention, and that, mention as the 39th fastest growing business in Atlanta, Georgia, in 2003, is still only 6 sentences. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not the largest company in the world, but it's been around for a while and has received some coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning towards keep - This company has actually received a good handful of news coverage even when I searched with their former name MMS Incentives, here. I'm assuming they only recently stopped using the old as articles from the early '00s appear with MMS Incentives. Google Books even found some results as well despite snippet previews. Unfortunately, Google News found alot of press releases even one from this year but there are some good results. While searching for any awards they may've won, I found two press releases for an award here and here. I tried searching for something non-COI but to no avail but at least a PR release is better than nothing and the award does seem notable to them. Aside from this, I didn't find any awards/accolades for the company. I also didn't find much in-depth about its early days and founder Steve Damerow but at least it's covered in the AJC article. Again, this company has received some coverage local and non-local though maybe not huge but still something so I'm leaning towards keep. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is hard for me to see the award you linked to as a signifier of notability anywhere near the level general called for; it is an award with over 100 winners per region, apparently generally self-nominated with paid entry, issued by a group with an impressive name (National Association For Business Resources) but note that red link, with the suggestion that they are not a notable source (nor is there a page here for the award itself); a quick Google check suggests that the award is what they're primarily about (or at least how the attention is paid). Your Google News Search returns less results if you actually link the two words of the name (there are other MMS organization that pop up with your search... and even do after linking them, this MMS is not the Minerals Management Service), and it is pretty clear that most of them are the sort of passing mention that WP:CORPDEPTH calls us not to value, such as passing mention in identifying individuals or their work history. The Google Book results face much the same problem; being largely a mixture of print databases, no more establishing notability than a phone book listing would, and false positives where the words "loyalty" and "works" appear adjacent. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware some of the links were irrelevant and some of the Books links were as well (directories) but at the bottom of the page there's a Stanford Business and Builder. I also commented that it's hard to see what they see behind the preview wall. I also understand the award is probably minimal in that case that they also haven't won anything else. However, it does seem that they have at least gotten a little more attention over the years. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Business is an alumni newsletter mentioning that one of the alumni has a new job. Even if the location didn't make it unnotable, WP:CORPDEPTH specifically notes that coverage showing personnel changes does not count toward depth. The Builder publication is the newsletter of the National Association of Home Builders, giving a brief mention of Loyaltyworks as managing the Association's Builders' Circle program... which means it is not an independent source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]