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

The result was KEEP - Withdrawn by nominator. - MrX 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seacon Bangkae[edit]

Seacon Bangkae (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)

Inadequately sourced article about a shopping plaza in Bangkok. No evidence of notability. Unless some reliable sources can be found to establish notability, this subject fails WP:GNG. - MrX 23:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn - Sources have been located. - MrX 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Its lengthy construction seems to have been covered by multiple national newspapers.[1][2][3][4] --Paul_012 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those. I think it sufficient for notability. - MrX 18:59, 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 delete. Tone 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Hill Preschool Castleton NY[edit]

Maple Hill Preschool Castleton NY (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 preschool -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Could've just prodded it really. --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 23:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ORG. It seems inconceivable that a preschool might be notable and this one most certainly isn't. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nice pre-school in Castleton, New York, southeast of Albany, but run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 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 delete. Tone 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kimball design approach[edit]

Kimball design approach (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)

Data warehousing might be a notable topic, but this article is almost incoherent, contains no sources, and appears to contain significant original research in a how-to format. Kinu ^t/_c 22:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Data warehouse article already contains partially-referenced discussion of the Kimball vs Inmon approaches; not perfect but a better context for any non-WP:NOTMANUAL material on this topic. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If there were any sources, could be merged into Ralph Kimball perhaps. But with no sources, it seems like a personal essay or how-to. Not a Wikipedia topic. W Nowicki (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an encyclopedia article. More like an essay. Steven Walling • talk 08:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Bronson Cartano[edit]

Jane Bronson Cartano (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)

All current references are to a family history website, article apparently written by one of her decedents, web search finds only primary and unreliable sources. Article is primarily an obituary. No demonstration the subject meets WP:GNG --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG -- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 00:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:MEMORIAL -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:35, 30 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:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Hastal Prague Old Town[edit]

Hotel Hastal Prague Old Town (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 hotel, the article is like advertisement, without any third-party sources. Yopie (talk) 21:21, 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 delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sulfuric acid anodizing electrolyte method.[edit]

Sulfuric acid anodizing electrolyte method. (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)

Poorly written, unsourced, original research article about anodizing. Duplicates some of the content already covered at anodizing. This article was apparently created as a WP:COATRACK for adding a spam link to a vendor of anodized aluminum products. I do not see that there is anything in the article worth salvaging. - MrX 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kolbasz (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article creator has attempted to spam his website into other articles and admits to a WP:COI of the manager of the commercial website.Martin451 19:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 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 withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2013[edit]

List of United States tornadoes from November to December 2013 (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)

Duplicates November 17, 2013 tornado outbreak, which already contains this list. No other tornadoes included, so it doesn't even cover what the article title indicates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the page only includes tornadoes from the November 17 outbreak because those are the only tornadoes that have been confirmed during the month so far. If additional tornadoes do occur, they will be added to the page. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same reason as is given by TropicalAnalyst. Tornadoes are added to these lists as they are documented, and so far, only that outbreak has produced tornadoes in the U.S. this month. If historical records are any indicator, we can expect at least a few more tornadoes will be added to this list. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw Nomination I didn't realize there is apparently a project to list all US tornadoes by two-month calendar periods. I should have checked before nominating. Mea culpa. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Matakevich[edit]

Tyler Matakevich (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 amateur; fails to meet WP:ATHLETE as I read it. Orange Mike | Talk 19:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coverage that I can find appears to be local and on his high school playing career, and high school players are rarely notable. I see no exception here. He could achieve notability through WP:GNG from his college play, but I don't see that as achieved just yet. I recommend that the article creator try another wiki for now and when he's ready, we will be too.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH as well as WP:GNG. Lacks significant achievements and independent coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:57, 26 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) 01:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bitácora Gastronómica de Venezuela[edit]

Bitácora Gastronómica de Venezuela (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)

Previously PRODed article that creator de-PRODed. Having searched for more refs I believe this Spanish language cookbook does not meet WP:NBOOK. The book is written by a Carlos E La Cruz. An article on him (created by the same user) got deleted on November 12 but was re-created on November 23. Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent coverage found. --Michig (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence anywhere of notability. (The article, about a book by Carlos E La Cruz, was created by an editor with a long history (using more than one account) of posting unambiguous spam about Carlos E La Cruz, sometimes recreating articles after deletion, either under the same title or under a new title.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:51, 28 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) 00:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Windows Vista[edit]

Criticism of Windows Vista (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)

POV split of Windows Vista which gives undue weight to the criticism faced by the OS. Windows 8 and ME were equally panned, but they have criticism integrated into the article in neutral fashion. Suggesting redirect to Reception section, but keeping history for license compliance. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As legitimate spinout of main article with sourced content. There may be some POV issues to certain parts, but it isn't so serious as to require deletion. Criticism articles are a common part of Wikipedia and though they're controversial, many have been kept at AfD (though you might think renaming to "reception" or similar would be more neutral). Incorporating third party reviews and commentary is central to ensuring Wikipedia is more than just a list of product specifications and release logs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep... this isn't a "POV split", this is a subject unto itself that received significant press coverage in 2006 and 2007. Even the subject of how much criticism Windows Vista was receiving was covered by news agencies! I'd also argue that criticism of Windows Vista was quite a lot more significant than other versions of Windows; consider that this article currently cites 85 sources, which is above-average for any Wikipedia article. On top of that, please remember that Microsoft Windows is a MASSIVE subject. Wikipedia has hundreds of articles covering it. We simply cannot cover all the salient points to appropriate depth in the ~850 words that are currently in the summarized criticism in the main Windows Vista article. Warren -talk- 04:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This meets the WP:GNG criteria fairly easily, although there may be a case for renaming it "Reactions to...", to make it more neutral.Squareanimal (talk) 11:03, 29 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) 01:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waj (language)[edit]

Waj (language) (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 notability criteria; simply one individual's personal constructed language, of which there are thousands that have enough documentation to create articles like this. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 17:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I removed the original prod template as a curtesy because he main author of the article had attached a hangon tag for speedy deletion. Didn't look much at the article at the time, but having looked over it now I agree with Metaknowledge. An a priori language only spoken by one person fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The archetype of something made up one day, without any coverage in reliable sourcing. Frankly, does this qualify for A11? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:57, 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 speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant hoax JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abby tarver[edit]

Abby tarver (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)

Well, this is a new one. It appears to be copied and pasted from the article on I Love Lucy, but with the title changed to "I Abby Tarver" and with the actors and actresses's names changed as well. I tagged it as a hoax, and I think it should be deleted as such. Jinkinson talk to me 16:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:15, 24 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} 19:15, 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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines in Thuringia[edit]

List of wind turbines in Thuringia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · [5])

List of wind turbines in Schleswig-Holstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Saxony-Anhalt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Bremen, Hamburg and Lower Saxony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Berlin and Brandenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Bavaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Rhineland-Palatinate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in North Rhine-Westphalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Hesse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Saxony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Saarland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of wind turbines in Baden Württemberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(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)

(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)

The article List of wind turbines was recently nominated for deletion. the result of the discussion was that the article was deleted (See here for the full discussion). It occurs to me that the criteria and reasons levied at that article apply more or less exactly to these articles. I B Wright (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: these were combined at my suggestion when the nominator was having problems listing them separately. I know that bulk AfDs are generally frowned on, but these are so similar that I really do not think we need a dozen separate debates. JohnCD (talk) 18:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pburka (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All of the arguments that I proposed for the deletion of List of wind turbines applies equally to this clutch of articles. They are unreferenced (and secondary sources are highly unlikely to be found). They are just a list and do not link to any other articles. And along with the List of wind turbines in Germany, they are effectivle an orphaned clutch of lists with nothing linking to them. 86.157.171.144 (talk) 19:22, 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 delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines in Switzerland[edit]

List of wind turbines in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article List of wind turbines was recently nominated for deletion. the result of the discussion was that the article was deleted (See here for the full discussion). It occurs to me that the criteria and reasons levied at that article apply more or less exactly to this article. I B Wright (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE: The criteria for the previous deletion apply almost exactly to this list entirely unreferenced from the required secondary sources. I B Wright (talk) 13:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are not allowed to !vote twice in a single AfD (nomination counts as an automatic delete !vote), so I have struck your second !vote. --Mark viking (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: All of the arguments that I proposed for the deletion of List of wind turbines applies equally to this article. It is unreferenced (and secondary sources are highly unlikely to be found). It is just a list and an orphan with nothing linking to it. 86.157.171.144 (talk) 19:24, 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 delete. Tone 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Stewart (actor)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet N/GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Numerous searches did not provide any significant or in-depth sources so basically this article is going to mirror everything IMDb lists. There's nothing to improve this article and thus a page about him is better suited at IMDb than an encyclopedia. If any chance he becomes notable one day, I'm open to a future article. SwisterTwister talk 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and unreferenced. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 07:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yuki Sato (actor)[edit]

Yuki Sato (actor) (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)

Unsourced BLP with questionable notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, his entry at the Japanese Wikipedia shows a plethora of roles, both major and minor (seen here), as well as mentions in Japanese entertainment news (1, 2), interviews for his part in Kamen Rider Kabuto (1, 2), and his reprising of that latter role in a video game ([6]).—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Beyond the articles Ryulong found, there are quite a number of RS on him, many centered on his well-reported relationship with Rena Tanaka ([7], [8], [9], [10]); but others related to new roles or other gossip ([11], [12], [13]). I think this is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has had several significant roles, and has been covered by several reliable sources. Those sources should be added to the article though. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 23:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple sources have been found to establish notability, the concern for this AfD has been met. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are multiple sources to establish notability on this biography of a living person per WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:30, 28 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Yes, there was a delete !vote, but considering the rest of that comment I'm not certain it was meant for this AFD. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 00:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aisenshi[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:NBAND or N/GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Additionally, I just CSD A7ed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Definitely passes both NBAND and GNG, as it is comprised of Anthem's front man Eizo Sakamoto and his collaborative partner from Animetal She-ja who is notable in his own right, but I've yet to produce an article on him on the English Wikipedia. You can see more discussions of the group here and here. I will be adding these sources to the article shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator withdrawl - Ryulong appears correct, I didn't do enough research on it before nominating it. With that being said, its maybe questionable for a wee bit, but it'll meet GNG and I know of IRON ATTACK! from their Touhou work and their considerable impact. Its just finding English sources that is my problem. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Ryulong, as the article's subject meets GNG. Would have non-admin closed this AfD, but because of the Delete !vote, let the AfD run its course. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK #1 Nom has withdrawn deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:32, 28 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) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burns (architect)[edit]

Steve Burns (architect) (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)

Obviously a capable golf course designer (he received 3rd place for a magazine award in 2000), but this article has languished for years cited only to his CV. I can't see any other reliable coverage about him or his contributions to landscape design. No evidence he passes WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Sionk (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article is outdated; according to his own LinkedIn profile, he now works for Classic Landscape Design. But there is another Steve Burns who is a fellow of the American Institute of Architects and more notable; I can't find much of anything on the golf course designer, and if someone else does, I suggest moving it to (landscape architect) or (golf course designer). Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 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 delete. Tone 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rangers Strike cards[edit]

List of Rangers Strike cards (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)

Unencyclopedic list of each individual card in Rangers Strike covered by WP:NOT. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list evey element of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed on the website. Sionk (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sort of cruft has no place in an encyclopedia. Thanks to Chris for trying to cleanup the Anime project.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This has nothing to do with anime or manga, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Tone 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Masked Rider Expansion cards[edit]

List of The Masked Rider Expansion cards (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)

Violates WP:NOT, a list of all cards from the expansion of Rangers Strike in complete and total detail down to the "Rarity" and type of card. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list every element of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed on the website. It would have helped if these related articles had been listed on one AfD! Sionk (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of XGather cards[edit]

List of XGather cards (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:NOT is probably the best reason for deleting this card list of Rangers Strike cards. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list every card of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed on the website. It would have helped if these related articles had been listed on one AfD! Sionk (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:58, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of promotional Rangers Strike cards[edit]

List of promotional Rangers Strike cards (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)

Completely unnecessary list and split from Rangers Strike we do not list promotional trading cards independently from their core article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the Rangers Strike game is not even proven notable, being an unsourced article. There's no justification to list every element of the game on a Wikipedia list article - the cards are listed in simlar format on the website. It would have helped if these related articles had been listed on one AfD! Sionk (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The game, however, is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 22:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Stronger (character)[edit]

Kamen Rider Stronger (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)

Does not meet N or GNG, unsourced, and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Needs to be cleaned up and treated like a fictional character, but subject is the protagonist of a nearly 40-year-old TV series in Japan, so sources will be difficult, but not impossible, to come by. I believe I have a book at home that discusses him, along with the other fictional characters in the franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I second it as he is the main protagonist of his series and has made numerous appearances in future entries.Fractyl (talk) 12:31, 30 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 List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider TheBee[edit]

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

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

Does not meet N or GNG; it is a fictional "battle suit" used by the characters and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• REdirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:07, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider PunchHopper[edit]

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

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

Does not meet N or GNG and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• REdirect to List of Kamen Rider Kabuto characters.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:06, 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 redirect to Kamen Rider Hibiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Todoroki[edit]

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

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

Does not meet N or GNG, unsourced since 2008 and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect whatever the character list is for Kamen Rider Hibiki; I cannot recall what it is at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:04, 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 redirect to Kamen Rider Hibiki. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Ibuki[edit]

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

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

Does not meet N or GNG, unsourced since 2006 and does not warrant a stand alone article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect whatever the character list is for Kamen Rider Hibiki; I cannot recall what it is at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Nega Den-O[edit]

Kamen Rider Nega Den-O (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet N or GNG entirely about a fictional villain transformation and goes into great detail about his vehicles with no indication of stand alone notability. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters or Imagin, I can't remember where this particular character is mentioned at the moment.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:03, 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 redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Gaoh[edit]

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

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

Does not meet N/GNG stand alone requirements, both sources are unidentified magazine scans on photobucket. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Kamen Rider Den-O characters; although I do believe that there were sources supporting notability, but they have just become difficult to come by due to the age and the fact that a major Japanese newspaper does not keep its online archives that long.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 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 delete. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hodopathy[edit]

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

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

This has absolutely no scholar footprint that I can find, and all the sources are to some newspaper articles. It doesn't even show up in book sources, scholarly or otherwise. We cannot source an ALTMED article off of a bunch of news reports, and the use of a pseudo-scientific name for something that has no scientific trace tends to suggest that this isn't what it's depicted as anyway. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it to do with injuries sustained using coal carrying apparatus? We could use the coal to burn it with fire. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 14:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It stands at the intersection of WP:FRINGE, low notability, and self-promotion. Unlikely that we could ever get appropriate sources to cover it neutrally, let alone medically reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobrayner (talk • contribs) 14:38, 24 November 2013

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No WP:MEDRS quality sources available. jps (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above, no notability, no MEDRS sources. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: insufficient quality & quantity of sources to make an encyclopdia entry. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, fringe. -- Scray (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bobrayner said it best: it is both fringe and non-notable as well as (probably) promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 30 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) 01:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Sports Company[edit]

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

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

After creating this article when I first joined, I have now come to realize that it probably never really met the notability guidelines. As others have edited it, it can't be G7 CSDed so I am nominating it as an AfD on the grounds that it is non notable. Oddbodz - (Talk) (Contribs) 13:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Checking Google News archives and Google Books finds no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. And the article creator and sole author of its substantive text content requests deletion. Qwfp (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 26 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) 01:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

USB Easy Transfer Cable SDK or API[edit]

USB Easy Transfer Cable SDK or API (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 product. While not blatantly promotional, the material here is more of the user's guide variety rather than a description of a notable product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too many style problems and lack of sources means a merge would not be worth it. Subject already has a place in Easy Transfer Cable#API or SDK which also needs sourcing and explaining what those acronyms mean. Way too soon to spin off that stub section to its own article. W Nowicki (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence device is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Why delete?, I have used, very good, SDK is free, what is promotional? This description of a notable product,not user's guide, the user's guide of the product has more than 50 pages,guide user use the sdk with VS6.0,VS2008,VS2010,Linux C/C++,Delphi,Java, the articles and user's guide completely different. In order to monopolize the market, all manufacturers do not provide API, developers need the SDK, the SDK is noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.1.13.185 (talk) 02:22, 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 delete. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heathcliff H. Weissman[edit]

Heathcliff H. Weissman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This "lesser-known German philosopher, sociologist and psychologist" is, in fact, so little known that I couldn't find anything on him - Google, VIAF, and WorldCat searches yielded zero results. The same accounts for the journal he allegedly "wrote", "Der Konflikt der Klasse". Also note that, while "Heathcliff" obviously isn't a regular German name, his middle name "Heinsburg" belongs to the "fake-German" category of names. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 10:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since no evidence that this person existed has been provided there is a clear case for delete. Possibly a hoax. Creator is an spa. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I too am finding nothing on this person, even with wide search criteria, so agree with User:Xxanthippe that a potentially misleading article is best deleted in the absence of evidence. AllyD (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear WP:HOAX. --Ben Ben (talk) 11:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I too see problems with this article. The name doesn't make sense in light of modern German naming laws, which require the name to be officially approved - I'm not sure what the law was in 1887 however. Meanwhile, we have a predominantly Jewish surname Weissman, and yet no mention of what happened to him after 1933 when the Nazis came to power. Presumably he would have either escaped abroad early after being fired for being Jewish, or have been caught up in the holocaust. Just doesn't make sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX. This does not appear to be a legitimate person. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I suggest the possibility of sanctions against article creator (after he has had his say, of course). Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xshellz[edit]

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

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

A previous article on this firm was deleted following AfD on 23 October 2013, but this article has now been created by a new editor. Apparently the text is insufficiently similar to the previous to meet WP:CSD G4. Neither of the two online resources that are offered as references appears to me to be a significant award. My view - as per the October AfD - is that there is a lack of evidence that this firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH, hence here we are back at AfD just a month after the previous. AllyD (talk) 09:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per CSD G4. I strongly disagree with the declining admin: [14] whatever text (I don't see it) was there in the previous version, the concerns about promotional nature and total lack of secondary sources haven't been addressed in this version. Articles once deleted at regular AfD should be held to higher standards than first submissions, because the due diligence in searching sources has been done before. No such user (talk) 07:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete at whatever speed you need. Not notable without any independent sources. If they ever grow large enough to be covered, that would be the time to add an article. Far too many three-person-and-a-web-site companies for an article on each one. W Nowicki (talk) 18:36, 30 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) 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadine Dajani[edit]

Nadine Dajani (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)

BLP that has been unsourced for six and a half years. No significant coverage found. The only claim of notability in the article is writing a 'popular novel'. Michig (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a Romantic Times Online review of her first novel, apparently also reviewed in "Library Journal", but I am not finding anything to meet the WP:AUTHOR criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete In addition to Romantic Times and Library Journal, there is Publishers Weekly, Publishers Weekly, Booklist. That's 5 reviews. Not bad, but there are no opinion reviews in newspapers, just trade summary reviews, and no GNG coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:32, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Maxwell Garvie[edit]

Murder of Maxwell Garvie (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 "historic significance [is] indicated by persistent coverage of the event" – WP:CRIME Technopat (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete By coincidence, I had just been reading the 5 pages in Kenneth Roy's new book that relate to this trial when this article appeared at WP:NPP; hence the reference. As to whether its recollection in that book meets WP:PERSISTENCE and whether the murder and trial were of lasting significance, I tend to think not. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A much better search term is simply Maxwell Garvie which turns up quite a few references to the case, as in this one in the Daily Record. Persistent coverage there is, in the tabloid 'true crime' category, but I am still inclined to delete. There is nothing in the mere facts of the case to make it stand out from many other killings around the world every year, and I see nothing in the continuing coverage to suggest that it has passed into the popular culture or influenced the law otherwise. --AJHingston (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The case generated quite a lot of publicity in Scotland at the time, and it has received the occasional mention over they years. If there are 5 pages about it in a recently published book this is an argument against deletion. I think the test is whether a case has generated persistent coverage, not judgements about the type of coverage. PatGallacher (talk) 14:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - definitly one of the most infamous cases in scotlands history. But needs an expansion etc. Basic WP:GNG covers this.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Searching for Maxwell Garvie on Google Books gave me several book sources [15] [16] And if there are five pages focusing on it in a new book? That just proves the notability. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article certainly has significant coverage. However, it needs to be expanded. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- The Scotsman assessment quoted in line 1 is sufficient cause to keep it. It certainly needs expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's attracted continuing press and media interest over more than 40 years up to the present day, meeting WP:PERSISTENCE.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Article desperately needs expanding, but there's lots of sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:19, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. Wang[edit]

Wayne L. Wang (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)

Unsourced BLP. Nothing here is a strong claim of notability and no significant coverage was found of the subject or his books, which appear on lulu.com suggesting they may be self-published. Article appears to have been created by someone with a close association with the subject. Michig (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:03, 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 delete. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pure NRG Fx[edit]

Pure NRG Fx (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 product, Google News turns up empty. Referenced only to the product's web site. Created by a paid advocacy account, see [25]. MER-C 08:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Taking into considerations other creations by th same user, clearly intended as promotional. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero evidence for notability; only purpose is promotional. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 26 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) 01:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DoDonPuchi Zero[edit]

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

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

There's little to no information about this game on the internet. GameFAQs, probably the biggest gaming database out there, has no entry for this game. Cave has no information about it on its website either. Jotamide (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS (at least in English that I can find). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:21, 26 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 per criteria WP:CSD#G11 as blatant spam and WP:CSD#G13 as most, if not all, of the content was copied verbatim from the corporate website. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NExT Training[edit]

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

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

Promotional .... Alferdomach (talk) 07:09, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. SmartSE (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ero Shocker[edit]

Ero Shocker (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 significance ... Alferdomach (talk) 07:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No claim of significance. Could be speedied under A7. --Michig (talk) 08:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 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 delete. Tone 16:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Culp[edit]

Brian Culp (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)

May not be interesting, or unusual enough for inclusion. I'm not able to locate significant independent coverage or sources. Scottyoak2 (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable for his baseball career.... unsure about his career as a writer of tech handbooks... but article would need more substantive sourcing for it to meet GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsure about the baseball, he has local coverage.[26][27] but I am sure the books don't pass WP:NBOOK and thus fails WP:AUTHOR. The announcement that the next book will be published on exactly December 29, 2017 is a WP:CRYSTAL record for longest book release date. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to meet either WP:NBASEBALL or WP:AUTHOR. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William 12:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (gas) @ 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMX Resources[edit]

IMX Resources (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)

Please comment on the significance of the article ..... Alferdomach (talk) 06:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that the fact that a publicly traded company is listed on a major developed country's (Australia's) public stock exchange is a strong claim of notability. Also the company has regional significance as the first company to open a new iron ore mine in South Australia in over a century, and the first in Australia to utilise the rotainer system for iron ore exports. Danimations (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. The article in The Australian indicates notability, probably more available if some legwork was done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:11, 26 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) Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 22:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WPG Resources Ltd[edit]

WPG Resources Ltd (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)

Significance ? Alferdomach (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that the fact that a publically traded company is listed on a major developed country's (Australia's) primary stock exchange is a strong claim of notability. A search of the Google News archives shows significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator has not provided a valid deletion rationale. As Cullen suggests, additional sources can be found if some legwork is done. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 00:12, 26 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. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rey Docyogen[edit]

Rey Docyogen (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:NMMA with no top tier fights and WP:GNG with no significant non-routine independent coverage. Being champion of a second tier organization is insufficient to show notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NMMA and GNG with no top tier fights and only routine sports reporting.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:11, 26 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. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Yundt[edit]

Rob Yundt (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 and the only coverage given is a link to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:10, 26 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. Tone 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Paulino[edit]

Julio Paulino (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 and whose coverage consists of routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NMMA and GNG (only routine sports coverage).204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:10, 26 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 backed arguments have been made for the inclusion of this article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Mahdavi[edit]

Farhad Mahdavi (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 reliable secondary sources to show notability according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (WP:BASIC or WP:MUSBIO) -- Dalba 04:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop! Don't delete! I think the sources are completely reliable! We can see huge amount of Farhad's releases on iTunes of Apple and this is so reliable! Same to Beatport! I think this article should stay at wikipedia! With a quick search in Google we can see good results about Farhad's notability. Armin Van Buuren's support on Farhad's music is another reason for Farhad's notability. I'm disagree with deletion. Tranceman2000 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear POV issues, beginning with how as a child the subject played a toy keyboard. Notability is borderline at best, but on closer review doesn't suggest much. Kabirat (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabirat: So why delete? We can fix these minor issues. No need to delete whole article in my opinion... Tranceman2000 (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tranceman2000: - Could you please specify which of the notability criteria on WP:MUSBIO is demonstrated in the article? Note that web sites selling his music (such as iTunes and Beatport) would not be considered sufficient independent sources. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Tranceman2000: Notice that "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." (WP:GOOGLEHITS) Also per WP:MUSBIO, "release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories" can't be used as source for proving a musician's notability. (All references to Beatport and iTunes are of this kind) -- Dalba 17:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Dalba @GoingBatty: So I'm here to explain Farhad's notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music):

According to Criteria for composers and lyricists: 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. One of the reason of Farhad's notability is big DJs supports on his musics! Armin Van Buuren The No.1 DJ in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012 supported and played one of Farhad's track live in his radioshow A State of Trance and mentioned his name, Go here: http://astateoftrance.com/episodes/episode-594 The track number 22 is Farhad Mahdavi's Blue Rose. Armin Van Buuren mentioned his name by himself at 01:40:58 After a week his track ranked #3 as the best track of week with people voting in "Future Favorite" section: http://www.astateoftrance.com/episodes/episode-595/ . Paul Oakenfold the best DJ of the world in 2002 played Farhad's release In Ctesiphon http://trance.allmix.org/en/paul-oakenfold-/planet-perfecto-022- Farhad's track is in number 25

According to Criteria for composers and lyricists: 3. Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. Most of Farhad's track are an inspiration for young and newcomer musicians and music producers! They remix his melodies: http://www.bia2.com/music/2665 http://www.last.fm/music/Farhad+Mahdavi/_/First+Kiss+(Dreamy+Remix)

According to Criteria for composers and lyricists: Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. His name mentioned as one of Orchestral Trance pioneers in Wikipedia long time ago and still not changed, So people know him as orchestral trance pioneer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplifting_trance#Current_status

According to Criteria for musicians and ensembles: 5. Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable). Check his Discography, He have more than 50 releases in major labels with a long history

in Resources content one of the good online source is Allmusic search engine! So go there and search Farhad Mahdavi then you can find tens of results! It's not a reason of his notability according to Wikipedia terms? http://www.allmusic.com/search/all/farhad+mahdavi

Trance Music is a special genre of Electronic Music and notability in Trance is not easy to find like other genres. At all I'm sure this article should stay at Wikipedia. He have most of the conditions of a famous producer. I'm totally disagree with deletion of this article! Tranceman2000 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. "DJs supports" does not make a recording a notable composition. If it's notable, it should have at least one of the conditions mentioned in WP:MUSBIO. Can you write an article about any of his compositions? Also A State of Trance's selected tracks are sometimes promotional, or they are announced during the show in order to help promote new artists. It does not meen that the artist is notable. (IMHO)

3. ". . . who meets the above criteria". Please refer to WP:COMPOSER #1 and #2 for those criteria. Remixes by "young and newcomer musicians and music producers" does not meet those criteria. Also we can't use Wikipedia as a source here. (WP:CIRCULAR).

5. Is any of those lables listed here?

Allmusic is good "to find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US". But All music's database includes over six million digital songs! Surely most of them are not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia.

-- Dalba 21:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. No it's not promotional! He played several times, Also same to Aly & Fila they played more than 10 times his music, not only as a voice only, There is mroe than 500 tracks got released per week, but A State Of Trance have only about 20 tracks. So it can be a reliable as a good source. Don't forget he is the best DJ of the world right now according to rankings. 5. This list are for Acoustic Music, Not for Electronic Music. Farhad have even a better labels than other artist who have pages in wikipedia, for example Blue Soho Recordings ranked #6 best Trance label of the world in a good ranking. Nobody can sign with this major label. I think I said enough reasons for keeping it in Wikipedia, If the Wikipedia team want to delete it without according to the sources I said then I can't do anything. A State Of Trance is the best radioshow of Trance music and one of the best Radioshows in Electronic musics at all! Nobody can find a reliable source like it. I think wikipedia prefer normal weblogs with unknown people than A State Of Trance by Armin Van Buuren Tranceman2000 (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, sources are not reliable, Fails WP:Music, probabely self-published. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• @Spada2: I said enough reasons for Farhad's notability, Also this article didn't write by himself, I'm a Trance Fan and one of his fans, I'll create more pages for big Trance Producers if this article approved in Wikipedia. I started creating pages for Trance Producers with Farhad but this kind of excuses for deleting will stop my article wrriting in Wikipedia. Tranceman2000 (talk) 16:02, 30 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) 01:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Owings[edit]

Erik Owings (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)