Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday April 9 (Tue) April 8 (Mon) April 7 (Sun) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 11 October	13 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. postdlf (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Anna[edit]

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

A notability tag was added but nothing has happened to fix. This movie fails guidelines. Beerest355 Talk 23:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Beerest355 Talk 23:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found a couple reviews already. Will work on improving the article when I get a certain source. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have received significant coverage: Washington Post, New York Times, and the Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major cable network, major actress, plenty of coverage to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 03:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow continued improvement. WP:BEFORE shows the film received coverage and analysis in enough independent sources to meet WP:NF. We do not delete notable topic if concerns can be addressed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:20, 13 October 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 result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijit Pawar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. reason was "Passes BLPPROD, just notable enough to pass CSD, but insufficient notability asserted and Verified to remain." The article talk page has a huge swathe of primary sources references. This looks like a pretty standard attempt to gain notability by virtue of Wikipedia entry. Fiddle Faddle 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one independent source, and I'm not sure of its cred. Many other references there, but they are all from a newspaper(?) owned by him.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have created the article. There are at least 3 different sources. One of it is from other group newspaper. The person is well known in India, mainly in Maharahstra. I am not sure how one can verify that, but I request to verify it by any sources available. In the end, I am aware that community decides about it. I request more editors to give comments here. Thanks in advance. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Standard is certainly credible, and confirms that Pawar owns a newspaper with a circulation of over a million. It is inconceivable that the owner of such a newspaper in the US or the UK would not be considered notable, so why are we even discussing this? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Phil Bridger. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, it should be discussed, bcause the subject is not really the sole owner, as one contributor here has implied. The subject is the son of Pratap Pawar (the chairman of the Sakal Media Group which owns the paper(s)) who acquired the company in 1985 and built up the business, but, surprisingly, he is mentioned only in passing in the Sakal article. He was previously the managing director, the post now held by the subject. The subject is a qualified engineer, who wound up his IT activities in Munich to join the family business when the call came, and succeeded his father. Another Pawar is the editor-in-chief of the group's flagship newspaper. They are all members of the Sharad Pawar clan. The subject's father Pratap Pawar is a younger brother of Sharad Pawar, a central government minister, whose daughter Supriya Sule, a Rajya Sabha Member of Parliament, has also been a board member of the Sakal Media Group. The creator of this page has, in, fact, himself revised the Sakal Media Group article, in which the subject and his activities, mentioned in this article, are also mentioned. So, why the duplication! This page doesn't really tell us anything new or more significant about him. More about him could be added to his profile in the Sakal article, as and when required. That article needs to be improved with more coverage given to other leading figures in the group. It is not a one-man-show, as this AfD seems to imply. All things considered, I think, for the time being, the Sakal Media Group article is the ideal place for all Sakal group honchos to be given their fair share of the limelight. The subject here does not seem to warrant an extra article at present. Hence, I think there is a compelling case to delete this article. I also don't see anything of substance in this article to merge or redirect, but the option is there.- Zananiri (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Reviewing news archives, I'm convinced the subject meets the notability guideline, and I see enough added content differing from to Sakal to warrant a stub. Information about his positions with other newspapers and organizations are off-topic and should not belong in Sakal. Every sentence has a source, most of which look great, with the only primary sources supporting claims seemingly unlikely to be challenged. A fitting stub if you ask me. — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not many people become MDs of companies such as Sakal at the age at which he assumed the title, when he succeeded his dad. And not many MDs of such companies can take off for a month's holiday to Disneyland and the USA with their family, just like that. But then, when asked about this, he said: "I've put professionals in place and I pay them to manage things. I am not here to manage them." (quoted here: http://www.business-standard.com/article/beyond-business/newsmaker-abhijit-pawar-108050901039_1.html). In other words, money talks. But it is Sakal money. Which is why I think the Sakal Media Group page is sufficient. Sakal made him and not vice versa. All other positions he holds emanate from his standing at Sakal, and the family name, connections and money. His other positions may be off-topic as far as the Sakal article goes, as someone has pointed out on this AfD Page, but those positions alone would not make anyone notable per WP:GNG, so it boils down to his MD post at Sakal. Had he continued doing whatever he was doing in Munich, we might never have heard of him. If Sakal remains a family business and his son succeeds him one day, just as he has suceeded his father, the son, too, in all likelihood, will have the same sort of standing this man has. Notability in such cases is incidental. So, yes, I think that the Sakal article is where he belongs. The additional bit in this article about his education and the degree he earned is cosmetic and could be included there. His predecessor, his father Pratap Pawar, who actually built up the company, has no WP article. He is, however, mentioned in passing in the Sakal article, implying that MDs come and go. Here today, gone tomorrow. The Pawar family took over the company in 1985 (see company history in the Sakal article) so one can understand why a Pawar holds the post. It is not like The Coca-Cola Company where the CEO has to earn his position. I am in favour of this article being deleted. If not, redirecting it to Sakal may be better than keeping it.- Zananiri (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. m.o.p 04:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardaway[edit]

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

Puff piece presumably created by the subject. Subject gets a lot of Google hits, as one might expect from a PR agent, but unfortunately they are not in reliable sources that significantly discuss him, and therefore don't confer notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pretty clearly fails WP:GNG. Chillllls (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - puff piece. reddogsix (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless, over the next seven days, sources are provided which support a significant claim to encyclopedicity. Being written up by an alumni magazine is not sufficient. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 01:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm flummoxed. If there are articles attached that illuminate the subject as being notable, is that still grounds for deletion? Your opinion of whether its a puff piece doesn't negate the apparent fact that this person seems to be notable. Conjecture and facts are not the same thing. I've taken the time to reach through each citation in its entirety. I suggest that we all should do the same thing, then we can come to the smartest decision. I don't think we should inject our opinions in the matter we've done thus far. From the cited articles (sans the alumni magazine article) it seems as though the person is notable. The alumni article only substantiates the person's alma mater. Hope this helps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.9.166 (talk) 02:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Notability" is not a magic talisman word, it is a concept subject to discussion, debate and community consensus. You believe that the articles cited represent significant biographical coverage by independent reliable sources. Other Wikipedians have examined the same sources and come to differing conclusions. Below, I offer my analysis of the sources provided:
[1] A one-line bio-rip in a blog event calendar entry about a "networking power brunch." Not an RS.
[2] A "single of the month" interview that offers the subject's views on dating, but nothing substantive about his life and work.
[3] A mention in a press release on a blog that calls the subject a "magnetic superconnector known for facilitating relationships around Washington" without further elaboration or discussion. Not an RS.
[4] A one-line blog mention that he hosted a conference panel. Not an RS.
[5] A mention in a university PR newsletter that he helped organize a panel discussion and hopes to launch a social-welfare program. Borderline RS, but not really independent.

Collectively, these do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I note that this is not a judgment on the article subject's life and works in any way, shape or form. Lots of people do many wonderful things and don't end up with significant biographical coverage of their life and works. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per NorthBySouthBaranof's comments above, the sources cited are insufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, though I believe we may have missed this piece that outlines his work: http://gaitway.tumblr.com/post/5360620550/dcs-top-image-architect-brands-the-political — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:3B80:C1:9535:43BF:1B36:8D4B (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more meaningless blog puffery. He works in PR. He can get himself written about in blogs (or write them himself). That shows he can do his job. It shows nothing more. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete under A7 criteria. No assertion of notability, little in the way of sourcing aside from mentions of the subject's work. m.o.p 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martine Frølich Poppe Wang[edit]

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

Does not appear to be very notable. All exhibitions are group shows. Though they are Norwegian, there is not page I can find for her on the Norwegian WP. Article reads like a resume, not encyclopedia entry. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not assess most of the sources as they were outdated, but from their description it is not about things that would make her notable. And Google doesn't return anything notable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Striking own comment. Iselilja (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Article reads like a resume" How so? It lists exhibitions, which is exactly the criteria artists use for notability, see WP:ARTIST #4 b and d. The question for this AfD is if those exhibitions are significant. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The exhibitons listed mostly seems to have been arranged by the Association of Norwegian Students Abroad (ANSA). So, we are at student level, but she may be among the better students. Her common name appears to be Martine Poppe and I found some more sources while googling that name. She graduated from Slade School of Fine Art in 2013. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW - all remaining problems with the article can be fixed by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kill screen[edit]

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

Made up term uncited by any reliable sources. Article itself contains some video game trivia of dubious encyclopedic value, probably original research. Couldn't find any good sources that used the term. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not sure, but I believe the term is fairly common. The term appears in books as well as in popular culture. For what it's worth, CBS Television's NCIS series, season 8, episode 16 [6] was called Kill Screen and featured the same. The article definitely needs improvement, but that's a separate issue.--Larry (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't seem to be a neologism. Or, at least, it seems to be in wide use. I found simple dicdefs here, here, here, and there's a casual mention here. So, it's a thing. There may be better references that go further in depth, so I'm going to err on the conservative side and give this a weak keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - needs better sourcing, but from Google Books it seems to be a term long in use and probably notable. Ansh6 6 6 22:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This term can be found at the secondary source tvtropes.org, which while not a reliable source itself, shows that the term has been around since the 8-bit game days. The term appears in sources like an academic paper and the Encyclopedia of Video Games. There is a gaming magazine named after this concept. The documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters talks about kill screens in Donkey Kong [7].Along with others' source finds, there is a case for marginal notability, although this is on the basis of many modest sources, not a couple of in-depth ones. I agree that some of the detail in the article may be excessive and could be summarized. But this is a matter of normal editing and a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. --Mark viking (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
' Facepalm' - okay, let's go through these counter-arguments in turn and explain why I think they're weak:

Larry - the source is about a TV show, and not about this subject

NinjaRobotPirate - "I found simple dicdef" ... "and there's a casual mention" - please read WP:VRS

Ash666 - no sources supplied

Mark viking -

"tvtropes.org, which while not a reliable source itself," - and being a self-published source, is unsuitable.

digra.org - what makes this a reliable source?

"Encyclopedia of video games" - this would be a good source to use. However, the term does not appear on the page supplied

blog.utest.com - what makes this a reliable source?

I'm sorry if I've upset anyone by declaring their favourite term is actually completely unverifiable, but Wikipedia's policies clearly state that improperly verifiable material may be challenged and removed. The entire article as it stands contains no reliably verified content whatsoever, and is fair game for being deleted. The only possibility is to blow the whole thing up and write a new article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 07:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that NRP's sources are enough to pass WP:N. Did you look through them instead of taking his word for it? Also, one of the sources already in the article from donhodges.com mentions that it was featured on kotaku.com and mameworld.net (which unfortunately doesn't exist anymore), which are reputable enough sources. And in any case, much of the sourcing for this will be offline, since it was really only an issue during the 80's. Ansh6 6 6 10:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie, Facepalm, eh? Don't be so hard on yourself. My point was that there are numerous references to Kill screen in books and such, which was even recognized by a popular TV show (the plot of the show was in fact based on a kill screen in a computer game). Check the source before claiming it fails to talk about the subject article.--Larry (talk) 16:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your examples only the Rogers book comes anything near what I would call significant coverage at being more than a sentence. As you can see from our policies, that is what is required for an article. Without those, it can have a redirect to perhaps software bug. If this was an AfC submission, I would not hesitate to decline it. If you wish, I can rewrite the entire article using all the sources supplied. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Facepalm advises, Its use as an expression of abuse, mockery, or for the denigration of others is unacceptable.

Regarding the sources,

tvtropes.org - as mentioned, not a reliable source, but it decisively refutes your claim of a Made up term.
digra.org - DiGRA is the association for academics and professionals who research digital games and associated phenomena. The author of the paper is a professor at the University of Montreal. It's an authoritative source, per WP:A.
Apparently my cut and paste of the GBooks link didn't work, sorry about that. Kill screen is mentioned two places in the Encyclopedia of Video Games: The Culture, Technology, and Art of Gaming, Volume 1: page 70, second column, there is a paragraph on kill screens in Donkey Kong and Pac-man, and page 473, second column, there is paragraph describing the kill screen bug at level 256 for Pac-man.
The documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters is the secondary source in this case. The blog was quoted merely to back up my assertion that kill screens are discussed in the film.

Along with other sources found by my fellow editors, my keep recommendation stands. --Mark viking (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well in this example, the facepalm was used as an expression of self-abuse and mockery (in as much as I'd found some of the sources everyone else had and considered them insufficient to keep the article). Now, I'm not really a cantankerous old sod, and my mind is prone to changing with convincing arguments. Some convincing counter arguments are now coming out of the woodwork. I have !voted "keep" on several AfDs while simultaneously improving the article (it's called the Heymann Standard), and I would universally recommend everyone to do the same. That's why my user page says "Reliable sources - kills all AfDs. Dead." It's also why the article now has three more reliable sources in it than before the AfD started. I know "AfD isn't cleanup", but if you can cleanup during the AfD, you should! Be cool, people. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind. I don't want to do a straight delete, but I'd like to propose a Redirect to List of software bugs instead. How does that grab everyone? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since a redirect is basically the same as a WP:Soft delete, that doesn't really change your position at all in the eyes of the keep !voters. Ansh6 6 6 17:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can expand a full article out of a redirect with additional sources. It doesn't require admin intervention. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But that's denying that there are already valid sources, even if they aren't in the article yet. What's wrong with the current stub that you created? Ansh6 6 6 19:57, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I want to check the content, expand the article to C class, change my !vote to Keep and close the thread! But I want to check the sources first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:26, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not answering my question. What's wrong with the current stub that you created? Ansh6 6 6 21:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable term, as others have shown. I restored some valid content the nominator deleted. Don't do that. You don't need sources in this article, if it links to where the sources are at in the main article. Dream Focus 19:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"You don't need sources in this article" A number of high profile policies and guidelines, not least WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV suggest otherwise. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dumisani dube[edit]

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

Written as a lawyer advertisement, autobiography of a person with little notability. Binko71100 (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resume. I'm also concerned that the article was created by user:Dumisanidube; sounds like a COI. Many of the references were invalid. I checked a number of the working ones, and there was nothing indicating notability (little more than a quote from the article subject). There are a fair number of hits in books and scholar, but I can't tell if it's the same person; when I add 'lawyer' to the search, almost all of the the hits disappear. If better sources were provided, I might change my vote.--Larry (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. scope_creep talk 22:11 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UCSI University[edit]

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

Unreferenced since at least February 2012 Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a substantial multi-campus university. Universities are important institutions and have long been regarded as notable. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Being unreferenced is not a ground for deletion rather than a spur to improvement. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Universities are generally considered notable, and this one's a biggy. Have you tried WP:BEFORE? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this article to replace a copyright problem and have no real interest whatsoever, but it's generally agreed that significant schools deserve coverage on Wikipedia. Further, I am always mindful of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. It doesn't take much effort to see that this school is significant. [8], [9], [10]. This is one reason why I wrote a placeholder article for building on myself rather than simply deleting it. (Another reason is that I knew what would happen if I didn't - another student or faculty member would come along and create a page by copypasting content. I've seen it repeatedly. Of course, it's been prone to repeated copyright issues even so, but that's true of many university and especially international ones in areas where English is not primary language.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Universities are considered to be automatically notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. University, ergo notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lufthansa Flight 4043[edit]

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

Non-notable aviation incident which does not pass the WP:EVENT guideline and violates the WP:NOTNEWS policy. What is more, according to WP:AIRCRASH, it should not even be mentioned at Lufthansa#Accidents and incidents, so a redirect does not make any sense, either. For the last three years, the article had indeed been only a redirect. At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 12, I was advised to re-establish the content, with possible subsequently filing an AfD, which I've hereby done.--FoxyOrange (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...I'm literally speechless that this made it into an article. This kind of thing happens all the time, it's literally the sort of thing that only makes it into any sort of attention because the alternative is covering a paint-drying contest. There are zero gNews hits, zero Google hits that aren't Wikimirrors, what we have here is a failure of notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) - The article's grammar is rather hard to read through, but the linked PDF indicates that, basically: the plane was not given take-off clearance, some vehicles were on the runway, the pilots made a mistake and took off anyway, but absolutely nothing happened. No injuries, no deaths, just an out-of-order take off that has no lasting notability. Chris857 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) in addition to the project's advice at WP:AIRCRASH. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small earthquake in Chile. Or in WP language, not notable. --AJHingston (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a significnat lapse in air traffic control but completely NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bushranger said it best, but this is basically a "man bites dog" story (also see related source that applies directly to this article). If it isn't comparable with Pan Am Flight 103, it probably isn't worth a standalone article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. buff bills 7701 01:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really this shouldn't be an article, per above. Just someone being silly thinking it could be on Wikipedia.aycliffe ^talk 14:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may warrant Immediate deletion as it smacks of the banned sockpuppet user Ryan Kirkpatrick!!--Petebutt (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Szabó[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Though he technically passes WP:NSPORT, this is only because he played less than a minute in an FPL match two years ago. There is no indication that this appearance, or anything he has done since, has generated significant coverage. Since the article so clearly fails WP:GNG, I think this falls under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all articles that meet the criteria must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, amongst others. 16:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. His one and only minute in a fully-pro match was more than 2 years ago. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. Technically barely meeting the lenient standards for footballers is not enough in this case.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Will speedily restore if he becomes an MEP. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Carthy[edit]

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

Fails WP:Politician. Matt Carthy is a local councillor, a member of Monaghan County Council, and since he has not achieved national prominence in this role, he is not notable. He is a Sinn Fein candidate at the 2014 European Election and this article appears to have been created by a new user called 4MEPSinnFein with the sole purpose of promoting his candidacy. Snappy (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Snappy (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His position on the Border Regional Authority is a "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" (the Authority is one of the eight sub-national divisions of Ireland) satisfying WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1. A Google News archive search for his name turns up 50 results. Some of them are outlets outside the Republic of Ireland: the Belfast Telegraph, the Jerusalem Post (paywalled), the BBC twice, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, Utusan Online in Malaysia, the Philadelphia Inquirer (paywalled), people.com.cn and TV 2 in Norway. The coverage may meet WP:POLITICIAN criterion #2. The apparently self-promotional article has been rewritten by Nikkimaria. I didn't look at the Irish stories but some are entirely about Carthy, perhaps enough to meet WP:GNG. —rybec 20:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: given the sources available, he would appear to meet GNG. I hope I've addressed the promotional issues, although anyone is welcome to improve the article further. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a minor local figure for the time being. An article may be created should he achieve notability in future. His position for the Border Region is not "statewide or province wide" so he does not satify that criterion. Press coverage cited above is for when he was just an organiser for Sinn Fein Youth, or very brief passing mentions of statements he made as merely a local councillor. Examination of the articles found in the Google hit list above (not in itself a proof of notability) reveals that there are actually no major articles devoted to him because of his minor status, so he has not gained truly significant media coverage. In addition, three of the four references cited to support article content are from his own political organisation (Sinnfein.ie, and An Phoblacht, which is the newspaper of his political party, Sinn Féin). They are not objective, reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. — O'Dea (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ireland does not have any sub-national legislatures as claimed above. Regional authorities are only at NUTS-3 level (lower than county council level in Britain and nowhere near the American state-level that "sub-national" means in this sense). So he certainly does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As mentioned above the Regional Authorities (RA) are not sub-national, and are actually being abolished next year as part of local government reforms. Also none of the other 37 members of the RA are notable enough to merit an article. Also the sources cites mostly relate to an incident with the Israeli envoy, which falls under WP:BLP1E. Snappy (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first two conditions of WP:BLP1E are

If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.

If the subject came here to promote his candidacy, he's not a low-profile person. There is other coverage of him besides the stories about the diplomatic incident, so the first condition doesn't apply. —rybec 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy is not evidence of notability. — O'Dea (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual describes high-profile people (emphasis added):

Has voluntarily participated in self-publicity activities, such as press conferences, promotional appearances, book signings, and the like; and/or has participated in an attention-seeking manner in publicity for some other concern, such as a cause, election campaign or commercial endorsee.

—rybec 08:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not made clear what point you wish to be understood in your latest comment, posted in response to me. I have not discussed high- or low-profiles, so it seems off the point. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual is not a policy, just an opinion essay — it says so at the top: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." Therefore, I choose to ignore it as an irritating, off-the-point, non-binding distraction. — O'Dea (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:O'Dea that essay is just an opinion piece and is irrelevant. What does User:Rybec mean by if the article was created to promote Carthy's candidacy? From the original article: "Matt believes it is time for a change in representation for the North West constituency. He wants to shake things up and believes the EU parliament should not be used as a retirement home for former TDs but rather as platform to stand up for the Irish people. If elected to the EU parliament he will use it as a forum to stand up against austerity; against red tape and bureaucracy; for investment and jobs and for fair agriculture policies that support the family farm." This has since been removed but it proves the original intent of the article creator. Also, Carthy has been a local councillor since 1999 yet the article was only created since he received the nomination to run for his party at the 2014 EP election. Snappy (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been clear what my last two comments were about. They were in response to Snappy's statement that "Also the sources cites mostly relate to an incident with the Israeli envoy, which falls under WP:BLP1E." If the article is to be deleted due to BLP1E, the subject should meet the conditions of that policy, one of which is being a low-profile person. While it's a reasonable inference, we don't really know that the anonymous contributor of the promotional text is Carthy, hence my "if": if it was him, that' s one example of self-promotional activity, making him a high-profile person. The incident with the Israeli ambassador looks like a publicity stunt to me. Carthy has willingly spoken to the press on several occasions. The essay I linked to is the same one linked from WP:BLP, but feel free to explain why it, or my estimation of Carthy as a high-profile person, is wrong. —rybec 19:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is a local councillor with some minor hits in google due to his membership of Sinn Fein and their stance on Israeli issues. He is low profile because none of those links are about him personally, he is just mentioned in passing. He has not been the subject of any article in national sources. Snappy (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd be inclined to go with Delete. As mentioned above it fails WP:Politician. However there might be an argument for keeping it for the moment. Little point in deleting an article, then having to recreate it if he winds up becoming an MEP.

CivisHibernius (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted and he becomes an MEP then an undelete request can be made, then an admin restores the last version of it. Snappy (talk) 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of future speculation. The question of notability is decided on present, known criteria. Where these change, re-appraisal is possible and, as Snappy pointed out, undeletion may be performed, or a minor stub such as this can quickly be re-started from scratch. There is nothing inevitable about Carthy becoming notable. — O'Dea (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete so. CivisHibernius (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 07:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Carter (writer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many blog reviews, but not the mainstream reviews in Publishers Weekly, newspapers and magazines to qualify for multiple reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't appear to be any substantial coverage, although there is a lot of noise in the searches from Chris Carter of X-Files fame, so happy to redact this vote if someone does manage to find something. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. (SNOW). A merge discussion can be performed on an article talk page, if so desired. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

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

There is no content to the article. it simply has a lead explaining what is on the nobel peace prize page (and a coup-le fo wikilinks) and a bunch of reactions, which can go onto the OPCW page in mentioning its award. There is nothing on the Award itself, which would really not have anything except maybe an anlysis of a speech which would in turn be PVO to put a certain analysis on (the links can go on the OPCW page). Dont see how this warrants its own page. Lihaas (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

??? This sounds like a merge proposal disguised as a deletion propsal. What is it, and of It is deletion, what is the concrn? Notability? Immaturity? --L.tak (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see anything wrong here. The former Nobel Peace Prizes each have their own article. The subject has no shortage of notability. It could perhaps be expanded, but it's not a reason for deletion. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Indisputably notable, already covered extensively in reliable sources worldwide, and of obvious historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep - this award was announced yesterday, (and is even featured In the news) we cannot expect an article to be perfect after 24 hours. The current state of the article is irrelevant when discussing notability - this discussion might be better as a merger proposal. The article has however been improved a lot since the nomination, so I don't think the nominator's concern are valid anymore. But the notability of this award, is as Cullen says it: indisputable. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep The Nobel prizes are about the most prestigious awards worldwide and individual awards thus merit a separate article. The award is often mentioned when referring to organizations or persons, even years after awarding. I see no copyright concerns, no content forking issues and the reasons given by the nominator (no content) seem not to be grounded in AfD-policy or incorrect; although the nomination also presents useful advise for further expansion (addition of info on the award). L.tak (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just realized that the nominator wasn't too happy with the Nobel comitee's decision. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep as outlined above. Nomination looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. EricSerge (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as meeting WP:GNG with substantial, widespread, worldwide coverage in reliable sources. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It undoubtedly still needs work but give it time, the article hasn't even been around for 2 days yet. As others have already pointed out, it is both highly notable and I can't imagine a similar level of detail about this particular award being found in either the Noble Peace Prize page or the OPCW page. Pieism (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily deleted by User:Tom harrison per CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standard-setting[edit]

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

Contested PROD. reason was: "An intriguingly vague essay consisting of verbiage interspersed with some references. It appears to be WP:OR" Fiddle Faddle 13:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not exactly sure why this page is up for deletion. Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reason 2: It is not an notable entry WP:NO.

I now referenced two sources direclty in the beginning of the article to standard-setting as a notable topic. Hopefully this helps.

Possible reason 1: I referenced some Dutch research articles and books. Do English Wikipedia pages not like Dutch references?Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Some standard setting methods truly originate from Dutch scholars and I try to include references to their original publications.
I removed one reference to contained both the English and Dutch title of the article.

Possible reason 2: I'm still working quite hard on the page, so it is not actually finished. Can that be the problem?Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, given the critique my English is too poor at this point. It needs quite some work to turn it into acceptable English (I will strive for Oxford English!)

Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible reason 3: I copy-paste some of the text to literal from other sources? Sdraaijer (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

OK, so this needs more work.
So, is it better to prepare the article outside of Wikipedia and then (when really finished) put it into Wikipedia?

Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the use of Wikipedia as a source, every tutor looks at Wikipedia with a "Yes, it's an interesting starting place, but can never be an authority" view. If you are creating a teacher's guide then Wikipedia is not the place to do this. Fiddle Faddle 13:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting this talk page. OK, so it must not be a teachers's guide style article. I think it is not. I really intend it to be a encyclopedic article, but do not seem to succeed. Sdraaijer (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC). I will take your comments seriously Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the issue is that English is not your mother language, so this may be hard for you to achieve, but, if you can show that the topic is notable (read WP:N) and change the style so it does not look like original research (read WP:OR) then the article will survive. Other people will see that it is being discussed for deletion, too, so may join in. Fiddle Faddle 13:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I will try and do this and try to find and use the Deletion Discussion pages.Sdraaijer (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC). Found it. Sdraaijer (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally: I will retire the article and work further in my sandbox untill it is improved sufficiently. Sdraaijer (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web App Generator for Enterprise[edit]

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

WP:Notability (software). No WP:GHITS except for this and one other Wikipedia page edited by the same author, for either "Web App Generator for Enterprise" or "Web App Generator Enterprise". —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the general caveats over using Google hits, but for a piece of software, of course, if there were sources one would expectthem predominately to be online ones. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Potential G11 article, furthermore, dependent on a non-existent article: "Web App Generator for Enterprise is an enterprise edition of the WAG Web App Generator SaaS platform." {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Tried looking for sources, none of which point to the subject, if at all. Fails WP:NSOFT. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 06:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, even if one adds "for Enterprise" at the end of the name. It might be possible some day to do a combined article on the company which appears to be Software Progressions Corporation in Walnut Creek, California. But even then not sure how many independent sources one would find; some companies make it hard to determine how big they really are. W Nowicki (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1: withdrawn by nominator with no opposing !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DLD (software)[edit]

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

Not notable. Former GNU package with a very limited audience. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know anything about software, but what do you think of the following articles? An Approach to Genuine Dynamic Linking and Cross-Address Space Dynamic Linking, which both seems to discuss this software. There also seem to be several Google Books results discussing this, but most are just snippets so I don't know how in-depth they are. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strange that I didn't find those. The former seems to be a proper source with 121 citations. The latter only mentions dld in passing, but maybe I can find a second source among those citations. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - withdrawing my own nomination. The GNU website together with one well-cited paper are just enough to establish notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bayes++[edit]

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

Non-notable piece of software. Mentioned a few times in the academic literature according to GScholar, and also only a few times on the web according to Google. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No Sources, all references are self referential. Puff piece, Advertising article. scope_creep talk 12:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not fully certain whether it should pass WP:BIO, as it is not a biographical article... I don't see much puffery either. Nonetheless....

Delete - Short article, may have some limited notability, however, the only content on the page is likely plagiarized: [11]. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Indifferent - As the original author of the article in 2005, I thought the library was going to gain popularity. However, development seem to have ceased for the last year (based on Git history), and the library seem to have negligible impact in the scientific literature. I therefore understand the arguments for deleting the article. Fredrik Orderud (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete The paper Šmidl, V. "Software analysis unifying particle filtering and marginalized particle filtering." In Information Fusion (FUSION), 2010 13th Conference on, pp. 1-7. IEEE, 2010 looks at Bayes++ in some depth, but it is the only one I found that had more than simple mentions of "we used this". That the software is on a Boost short list of packages based on Boost confers some real world notability. But I haven't found the multiple RS needed for notability. Basic info about the library is verifiable in reliable sources, and per WP:PRESERVE, merging a mention and redirecting to a suitable target would be preferable to deletion. Possible targets are List of statistical packages or List of numerical libraries. But without a standalone article, such a merge into either article might be out of place. --Mark viking (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 07:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Business Management System[edit]

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

The article subject does not covered in reliable sources, i. e. this subject fails WP:N Bezik (talk) 11:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD A7/A1, what companies? No establishment of importance, no context. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Mostly WP:OR. Utter codswallop. scope_creep talk 20:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Per WP:GNG Also, bonus points to scope_creep for use of the word "codswallop." PianoDan (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. (WP:NAC) JJ98 (Talk) 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco Field[edit]

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

No new ballpark has never broken ground for the Oakland Athletics, including San Jose or Oakland, all nothing but speculation. JJ98 (Talk) 07:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. JJ98 (Talk) 07:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turbo Touch 360[edit]

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

PROD contested with "remove deletionism". This appears to be a third-party video game controller with little to no assertion of notability, and fails the WP:GNG. Doubtful this content could be merged or redirected elsewhere. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 05:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A news search turned up hits in The Herald Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post and The Huffington Post. Since the product was manufacturered for a variety of video game consoles, a redirect would be inappropriate as there's no obvious choice. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And the nominator should please remember to click the Google news or the video game wikiproject custom search for something BEFORE trying to delete something. Dream Focus 19:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having clicked the links, I'm still not seeing much to assert notability here. Just because the controller is mentioned in a couple of newspapers doesn't give it instant notability (WP:NOTNEWS). The reviews of the controller, i.e. the IGN one in the article and The Huffington Post link might, however, if something insightful can be said in the article using them that makes this controller worthy of note, more than a simple ordinal ranking. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And if such can be written, I'd be glad to withdraw this AFD. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 15:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable product. Please consult WP:BEFORE before nominating articles for deletion.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruckus Law[edit]

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

Non-notable, WP:MADEUP Rhododendrites (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears to be made up; definitely not notable.--Larry (talk) 03:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is penis joke posing an encyclopedia article. It can't be deleted too quickly. RevoltingHomoBoy (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC) !vote by sockpuppet of community banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 12:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced nonsense. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD G3, hoax. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete Re-post of deleted material. See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Favorite betrayal criterion (4th nomination). Original research; none of the papers in the references section has ever been published. Markus Schulze 09:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it should be noted by the closing admin that the Delete !voter above has heavily promoted the Schulze method, which this article criticises. No opinion either way on this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment to Lankiveil: Actually, I had also nominated the comparison of instant runoff voting to other voting systems article although this article was very positive about the Schulze method. Actually, the latter article claimed that the Schulze method was the best alternative to instant-runoff voting. Markus Schulze 13:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article is non-notable and original research. This article had already been deleted twice in the past. The only reason why this article hadn't been deleted the other three times is that the supporters of this article were canvassing outside of Wikipedia. See e.g. this mail. Markus Schulze 14:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was discussed here and undeleted. Homunq (࿓) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Line (comics)[edit]

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

This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Marvel: The Lost Generation through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. BOZ (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per BOZ (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 20:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Brind[edit]

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

Despite the two excellent obits referenced, this gentleman was only remembered in them for being the wine buyer for a supermarket chain. There is no true notability in the WIkipedia sense. Fiddle Faddle 13:02, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only created and started writing this article an hour ago and had just stopped for lunch. Do you not think I should be allowed to write the article first before its nominated for deletion! I take it the reviewer involved has done their research!

Gomach (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THis is nto a fast process. If you can show he is notable except for one thing, show it. Fiddle Faddle 22:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of our biographical articles are about people who are notable for one occupation. Where do you get this idea that people have to have two strings to their bows to be notable? Your continual making up of non-existent requirements in your deletion nominations is becoming disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obituaries in major serious national newspapers such as The Times and The Daily Telegraph are among the best possible sources for establishing notability. And where on Earth does the nominator get the idea that "only remembered in them for being the wine buyer for a supermarket chain" is any disqualification to notability? We base our decisions on what such sources deem notable, not on our personal prejudices about what we think should be notable. The fact is that he passes WP:GNG by dint of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on obituaries, especially Times assessment of his career. Coretheapple (talk) 15:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there's current discussion elsewhere about whether someone with one major-paper obit and other passing mentions should be considered notable and we seem to be leaning toward "yes". Surely someone with multiple such obits would be considered notable. Stalwart111 06:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to World of Eberron. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Religions of Eberron[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Eberron through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to World of Eberron. BOZ (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
transwiki to some fansite that would love this kind of trivia and original research. As for Wikipedia, the subject has no independent sourcing and so fails WP:GNG leaving the options of delete redirect or merge. Since the suggested target article is already full to the brim with in universe primary source trivia, merging would seem to be merely taking editors time and effort to move all of the inappropriate content from one place to another but with no net improvement and merely creating a greater mess on the receiving side. There is no evidence that it is a likely search term to keep a redirect, and given the history of restoration of subjects with no WP:GNG sourcing, any redirect would need to be locked down. Delete seems an appropriate option. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with a transwiki here is that the target would likely be D&DWiki, which has a horrible reputation among the fanbase (for good reason). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page can be improved and can be made into a list that does not need the same requirements as N/GNG under the policy. A supporting list that better deals with the in-universe terms is acceptable under that policy and the size of Eberron would be unreadable as merged. Deletion is not clean up; and while much of the deletes are copy-and-pasted by TheRedPenOfDoom, this one is best reworked. Too much would be lost otherwise; especially with total deletion and not even blank and redirect. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are also subjected to a specific notability guideline and don't get a free pass for being plot dumps; since the above comment doesn't provide independent sources discussing the items in the list as a group, it is not based on policy, and should be discounted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChrisGualtieri. Jclemens (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World of Eberron, fails WP:LISTN in that the topic has not been significantly discussed as a group by independent sources. Only plot summary, fails WP:NOTPLOT.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main world of eberron article.Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to World of Eberron. There is zilch to indicate any real-world notability, and all of the sources in the article are primary sources. The keep argument seems to be based on "lots of hard work would be lost" which isn't a valid reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEGG Cancer[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. LT90001 (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. As written, the article doesn't show notability. If I interpret the revision history comments correctly, the main supporter didn't find any other references, but feels that Kegg Cancer is new and should be kept a while. This sounds like WP:CRYSTAL. However, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if an expert could chime in.--Larry (talk) 03:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already mentioned in the KEGG article. Maybe worth another sentence or two in there. But agree this one is not notable for its own article until there are plenty of other publications that refer to it, and the base KEGG article, currently tagged as a stub, grows too large. Not yet. W Nowicki (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to KEGG as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Maestro (wrestler)[edit]

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

Lovingly maintained autobio by a marginal pro "wrestler" and small-time actor, who seems to sockpuppet as well under at least two names plus (apparently) IP edits. Orange Mike | Talk 17:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is no Hulk Hogan, but regularly worked for several years on international mainstream TV (World Championship Wrestling) during his 20-year career. The self-editing is a separate issue. Article could use some work (WCW Televison/Cruiserweight Title didn't even exist, let alone around The Maestro's waist), but that's no reason for deletion (WP:RUBBISH). InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a serious conflict of interest going on here, and we need to take steps to fix that. However, I agree with Hulk that that is a separate issue and the subject itself is notable enough for an article.LM2000 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in order to blow it up and start over. An alternative would be to block the editor, but that would be draconian. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that our primary focus is to build an encyclopedia, rather than to be nice to disruptive editors, deleting the article would be far more draconian than blocking the editor. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NiciVampireHeart and Hulk have already gone to work, removing quite a bit of the unsourced fluff added by the user in question. The article isn't perfect but it is salvageable and shouldn't require too much work to fix up. Because this editor was only here to build up his own article, and not to help the encyclopedia, the suggested "draconian" measure seems more sensible to me.LM2000 (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is notable enough for an article and I don't think issues with the subject trying to inflate his importance is enough of a problem to require deletion of the entire article.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejudice towards redirection or mentions in appropriate articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Gauntlett[edit]

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

I don't think anybody can seriously argue that this person is/was in any way notable, even in his death. The event (i.e. his demise) may be notable, but that is unproven. An Early Day Motion and a few minor soundbites exchanged between the sponsoring MP and a poverty NGO are not sufficient to make for notability, IMHO. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 01:30, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be prepared for a surprise; I'm about to seriously argue that this person, or rather his death, was notable. (as has been suggested by User:Norden1990, I think the article needs to change to Death of Daniel Gauntlett; I'll do that when the AfD has concluded to avoid confusion). With reference to Wikipedia:Notability_(people) his death and the discussion around it was "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" for the national newspaper The Guardian, the UK magazine The New Statesman, Vice (magazine) in the USA, and substantial coverage by two regional papers (as referenced in the article). As noted, an MP involved was moved to comment on the death, as well as significant comment in blogs and NGO websites. His death is of ongoing interest with LASPO legislation (see articles). So...I hope changing the article to be about the event, rather than the person, would cover your issues? PhilMacD (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If, as has been suggested above by PhilMacD, this article is renamed Death of Daniel Gauntlett, I believe it will be an extremely important document, not just for future generations, but for many people in Britain today.

The decisions made by neighbours and the police and Daniel Gauntlett himself were all affected by laws we are all governed by. Those people's choices all serve to raise serious questions about our priorities today. According to all the news reports, Daniel Gauntlett was told by the police not to break into the derelict, condemned house. He chose to obey those instructions and instead slept outside in -2°C temperature exacerbated by wind chill. As a result he died.

Furthermore, again according to the news reports, neigbours called the police and reported his presence at the house. Had they not called the police and offered him shelter, some food and a warm drink and a dry blanket instead, again, maybe he might have survived that night.

All these questions are extremely difficult to answer, but they are at the core of what British society is about in the second decade of the 21st Century. David Cameron says he believes in a "Big Society" and that "We're all in it together". If he's sincere, why was Daniel Gauntlett allowed to be left out in the freezing night to die?

This is the debate opened up by the death of Daniel Gauntlett. If we are all in it together, who killed Daniel Gauntlett? Now I'm going to surprise you. I did - because I voted Conservative. I believed David Cameron was sincere. I believed David Cameron's Big Society included people like Daniel Gauntlett. I believed "all" meant ALL, not just those with a roof over their heads.

On 2nd March 2013 Mark McGowan posted this tribute to Daniel Gauntlett <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb07UL3olGs> It has been viewed 14,570 times

On 11th May 2013, three years after David Cameron became Prime Minister, just before I faced the repossession of my home, meaning I would become homeless, I posted this version of Mark McGowan's video tribute to Daniel Gauntlett <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I54-ZPd9tV8> A few weeks later I received a very emotional message from Daniel Gauntelett's daughter, thanking me for posting the video. I was able to tell her that her father’s story helped inspire me to fight to keep my home. And I did. I was lucky.

This is just one example of how Daniel Gauntelett’s death has had a positive effect.

Daniel Gauntlett was a real human being. His passing was a tragedy. It has affected many many people, most of whom never met him. Daniel Gauntlett's death represents one of the most fundamental issues facing British people today, one which after being Prime Minister for over three years, David Cameron has not even begun to address. If we can remember people who die in foreign wars, we can surely remember one who died equally needlessly as a result of how society obeys rules, regardless of the consequences to those who, for whatever reason are not counted as part of the "Big Society". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ModerateFKR (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic as given clearly non-notable, a news story that a homeless person died. However the larger story might be notable as Death of Daniel Gauntlett though I think current coverage at Anti-Squatting Law is probably enough. Creating a standalone article on this topic has a WP:NOTADVOCATE air about it reinforced by comments above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it either needs to be kept, or needs a big chunk of further coverage in the Legal_Aid,_Sentencing_and_Punishment_of_Offenders_Act_2012 article, but I think there's enough information to make it an article in itself, and addition of the information to the LASPO article in itself could sway that article in a WP:SOAPBOX way. In summary; the information should be somewhere, and as ModerateFKR shows, it contains important issues, but the article and its existence (I think) is WP:NPOV. PhilMacD (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Squatting in residential premises was a problem primarily (though not exclusively) in London. Once squatters got into a house it was very difficult to remove them, and by the time they were removed, the propery would often have eben damaged. Effectively, the squatters are stealing a home. Keeping a habitable house empty without a good reason is certainly wrong, but Local Authorities have powers to bring unoccupied property into use; with the ultimaate sanction of Compulsory Purchase. I heard on the radio of the case of a couple who had bought a house to renovate it and move into it; the squatters decided they wanted it; when they were evicted, the renovations had to be started again. The MP's case seems to ahve been that if the Act had not prevented Daniel squatting, he might not have died of exposure. An Early Day Motion is a sort of petition among MPs: they are rarely even debated. This case was no doubt being used by an opponent of the Act in support of his case against it, but this is a splinter off a splinter of political debate. I do not think this article should be kept unless the case starts getting regularly quoted. If kept it should be [Death of Daniel Gauntlett]]. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article was created Vice (magazine) and The Independent have quoted the case. I think we have to watch for POV overlap here; the debate over whether squatting is right or wrong shouldn't impinge on whether an article should be kept on Wikipedia.PhilMacD (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- The event is notable, not the man, and I would support a rename and a change in the direction of the article to consider the event and surrounding circumstances. There seems to be enough information to separate it from the Anti-Squatting Law article, and therefore should be distinct. Jack (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename -- Per Jackhynes. A homeless man isn't notable enough to deserve a page named after him. Instead, we are waiting for valuable expansion without undue weight. --George Ho (talk) 19:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the death of one homeless person is by no means notable. In large cities this probably happens on a daily basis. Otherwise we'll have an article for every car accident, suicide, etc. that gets reported in media. -Zanhe (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Any useful information is already contained within the article for Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Outside of that context, even the event he's linked to isn't particularly notable in and of itself, it's the specific legislation that's notable. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge to Homelessness in the United Kingdom. Gauntlett's death was senseless and awful, but WP:BIO1E would seem to apply. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Black magic (caffeine)[edit]

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

The only reference for this article does not include any reference whatsoever to "black magic", it is only a basic caffeine data sheet. Google results for "black magic caffeine" are instruction teks for how to "free base" caffeine from coffee. Not notable. flaming () 05:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect the real source for the article is this video. It's a silly argument for drug legalization, an illustration of how a recreational drug can be made from material you can find around the house. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability PianoDan (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no sources specified that actually mention the subject. The name seems to have originated from an article/video [12], but it's not notable.--Larry (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yeah, I saw this while re-writing a related article and was going to nominate it for deletion for all the reasons outlined by the nominator. I didn't get around to it but I'm glad Flaming did. Stalwart111 02:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoBYO.com[edit]

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

Non-notable: very little coverage (mostly from blogs) Prof. Squirrel (talk) 06:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real coverage from reliable or mainstream sources. Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the clear lack of reliable, third party sources to verify basic notability. Steven Walling • talk 03:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windbag[edit]

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

Dictionary definition. I do not see a good way for this article to ever progress beyond a dicdef. Wiktionary already has an entry on this word, so there would be no use in a transwiki. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No redirect target that I can see. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition. As for "Welsh Windbag," Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ---------> /// Carrite (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a dictionary. Nwlaw63 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this falls under G4 for speedy deletion per the old AfD. TTN (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. WP:CSD#G4 states that G4 only applies when the article is A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This page has undergone quite a lot of change since the 2010 AfD. AfD is the appropropriate venue. --Mark viking (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per research that suggests this nomination is a case of WP:TROLLING. --131.123.123.136 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken the above opinion posted by a banned user—see the most recent SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A Nobody/Archive. Deor (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable independent sources exist for this topic. --Simone 17:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The subject seems to be focal enough to the series as to just toe the line on this side of deletion. Article obviously needs work, though. Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has sufficiently improved since first deletion nomination. If you merged it, it would probably merge to List of Transformers spacecraft. Mathewignash (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs), no reason for deletion, we do not delete all of the Transformers articles because there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Transformers spacecraft; there is insufficient out-of-universe notability for this to be a standalone article, however as part of the list it is fully appropriate. This one is borderline as Human.v2.0 points out, however I don't believe the coverage is sufficient to avoid a merge. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Transformers spacecraft; If anyone can point to a reliable source that discusses real world information about the topic then I would support keeping it, but the current version of this article doesn't seem to meet any of the criteria for having its own page. --Jpcase (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 08:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Luxiole[edit]

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

The article and the two others in this nomination cannot reasonably be considered notable enough for a standalone article. It is almost entirely WP:INUNIVERSE, and has been unreferenced for years (because it is not referencable to reliable, significant coverage). This is Wikia material. These are about ships in a series of two video games who are barely notable are scarcely referenced themselves, and potential candidates for deletion. :) · Salvidrim! · ✉ 02:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all three of the proposed) per nom. Unreferenced, not notable and inaccessible due to in-universe style. JTST4RS (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPLOT but mostly because of lack of reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jellyfish (digital marketing agency)[edit]

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

This page is so highly promotional that it would require a fundamental rewrite. All but one source is either the company's own publications or does not offer significant coverage. The one source that is seemingly okay is a press release by a bank which does business with this company. I'm not claiming that this company doesn't meet WP:Notability (organizations and companies), only that if it is, it would be best to scrap this article entirely and start over from scratch. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly promotional. I'd probably speedy this as G11, to be honest. There are no substantive, third party sources whatsoever. Steven Walling • talk 03:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has been edited to remove brand references. comment added by Thesestairs (talk • contribs) 09:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC) "* Comment" added by davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the first step of a long march. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I find it hard to belive that a marketing company, even with 120 staff is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article includes several reliable, independent references from The Drum magazine, Visibility magazine and Business Week. Thesestairs (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The drum reference - questionable independence, does not provide anything close to significant coverage. Visibility magazine reference coverage provides even less coverage. Bloomberge reference has about the same level of detail as The Drum. Total: Nowhere near the level of significant coverage needed to demonstrate that this company meets WP:Notability. Remember that Wikipedia's notability criteria are for the concept of notability what a lagging economic indicator is for the economy - you have to be noted (i.e. with "significant coverage") by other, reliable independent publications first. Then and only then can an article be created. Remember also that by far most companies and organizations do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. KTC (talk) 08:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chowk Kumharanwala Level II Flyover[edit]

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

A bit of coverage on cost and whatnot is to be expected for a structure like this, but that doesn't make this flyover pass the GNG. The same goes for the others in this city that have articles written on them--they are routine structures, some with routine coverage and some with nothing at all. Also nominated:

Drmies (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom. The "coverage on cost and whatnot" happens to be very in-depth and easily demonstrates passing WP:GNG. Just because projects of this scale (approximately $40 billion) is "expected" to get coverage, doesn't invalidate that coverage. As a matter of fact, it's ever the more reason for it's demonstration of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spittor[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Transformers through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notable sources in article. Mathewignash (talk) 22:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs), no reason for deletion, because we do not delete all of the Transformers articles because there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 00:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards a merge discussion Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Octane (Transformers)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notable sources in article. Mathewignash (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mathewignash (talk · contribs), no reason for deletion, we do not delete all of the Transformers articles because there notable. JJ98 (Talk) 23:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:ITSNOTABLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Decepticons. There are no sources to establish out-of-universe notability for the character; only in-universe assessments and reviews of the toy. There is no non-fictional notability, so a merge to the character list is appropriate. Note that part of the article covers the character's appearance in Transformers: Robots in Disguise, where a version of this character is an Autobot, but that is "Mega-Octane" and therfore Mega-Octane should be retargeted to List of Transformers: Robots in Disguise characters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - It seems to me that discussing the toys that have been released of the character should count as out-of-universe notability. That said, I can't tell whether any of the sources included in the article are reliable. Either way, I'm not sure that there is enough information about the toys to really warrant a stand-alone article. --Jpcase (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Kit houses in Michigan. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Houses of Ypsilanti, Michigan[edit]

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

I don't think it would be appropriate to list a bunch of addresses of private homes on WP even if the subject were encyclopedic. PROD removed by creator. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (see further commentary below) - if Ypsilanti really is well-known as a centre of kit home construction or something then that (provided it is verified by reliable sources) could be added to Kit houses in North America but a directory of local homes is unencyclopedic and a BLP concern. Stalwart111 15:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ (edit conflict) - I see no evidence that "kit houses of Ypsilanti" is a notable topic in itself, given an apparent lack of sources, and it seems rather wp:run-of-the-mill. Nothing indicates how this would be different from "kit houses on Anywhereville, USA". There is one source about a specific house, but that doesn't extend to the topic at hand. Kit Houses of Ann Arbor, Michigan, however, presents sources that make me think that that might be notable (though it has similar issues to Ypsi). Chris857 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to redirect to a Kit houses of Michigan/Kit houses in Michigan when such is written, as that seems a broad enough, notable enough topic that can have useful content. Chris857 (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The kit houses of Ypsilanti (and Ann Arbor) are relevant to the urban development and architecture of the early 20th century in these towns. The listing of the addresses of the homes presents no more of a privacy concern than the listing of any other significant architectural feature in public or private ownership. If this is a relevant argument than none of the homes of Frank Llyod Wright, listed here, should be allowed as many of them are still private residences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 21:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FLW buildings are iconic, many of them are considered notable in their own right. Our own article suggests more than 100,000 kit homes were built accross the United States. Do you plan to list every one? If someone buys a FLW home, it's more than likely they understand they are buying a piece of architectural history and that their address will be listed in a good many places like reference books and Wikipedia. I don't think someone buying one of 100,000 kit homes would expect the same. Besides which, being relevant to the history of these towns does not necessarily make them notable. Stalwart111 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deleting the page was that it listed the addresses of the homes, some of which are private residences. The same is true of the FLW houses. Is there a Wikipedia policy against listing addresses? Or is that just the arbitrary position of a particular user being used to justify deleting the page?

Also, while there have been claims that over 100,000 homes were built across the US, the number of homes remaining is much less than that. The importance of these homes in the context of these communities is likely more relevant than examples like FLW homes. FLW homes, while often notable, tell little to nothing about the historical development and architecture of these communities. In comparison, the presence of kit homes within a community tell a great deal about the history of these communities and their continued presence are notable examples of an era of architecture and industrial production in the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 23:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then we need reliable sources (WP:RS) to verify (WP:V) that. You need to demonstrate that they are notable enough in that context to justify a separate article. That there are kit homes in that location is not evidence in and of itself that those kit homes are notable in that context. The inclusion of addresses isn't a reason to delete the article (because that content can be removed via editing anyway and the nominator suggested the subject was unencyclopedic) but it's worth noting that even the FLW list you cite above doesn't including individual addresses - some of the articles themselves include a street name (without a number) but going through a random sample, I haven't actually found a specific address yet. Stalwart111 23:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the FLW homes that I reviewed are geo-mapped which is effectively no different than listing the address. If you review the proposals for deletion by 'Roscelese', its based on the listing of private addresses as if that violates some Wikipedia policy, which you have acknowledge is not the case. It also appears that 'Roscelese' is using the claim that these articles are unencyclopedic as a justification for deletion when the real reason seems to be the objection to the listing of addresses. 'Roscelese' even made derogatory comments about the sourcing of the articles when the authors of those articles included a couple of experts in the field who have been published in numerous local and national publications along with being published authors themselves. That point is more relevant to the effort by 'Roscelese' to have the Ann Arbor page deleted when that article is well-sourced but highlights what appears to be a personal bias which shouldn't be part of the discussion about deleting the article.Kithousefans (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't see any "derogatory" comments but discussing sourcing is fairly routine given we require sourcing to verify content. At the moment, the article in question has one source - an article written by a local who lives in one of the houses. That source isn't particularly valuable for verifying much of what is in the article or for conferring notability on the subject. Listing addresses might be objectionable but a lack of notability is the bigger problem. Stalwart111 01:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was made in the request to delete the Ann Arbor article. Questioning the sourcing based on the publication doesn't raise confidence that the review is being done in an unbiased or an informed way. The Ypsi sourcing was not written by a "local who lives in one of the houses" but was published by the local historical society and includes its own sourcing in the article. As far as listing addresses, I've found another example of that with the list of Lustron homes that not only lists addresses but owner names as well!Kithousefans (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From that source:

When we purchased the home, it appeared to be a dark red brick due to the siding. During the five years we have lived there, our changes have been mostly landscaping and interior...

The local historical society might have then elected to publish it but we would still need much better sourcing, preferably some that demonstrates this might be considered a notable topic outside of a particular local area. And that statement isn't "derogatory", it's based on Wikipedia policy. Stalwart111 01:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the clarification. None the less, the article itself contains several citations beyond the author's on words and the work of the local historical society. Also, I haven't seen any Wikipedia policy that discounts works by noted authorities because they appear in a local publication.Kithousefans (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but 2/3 are citations to other local coverage. The only one that might be considered okay is the preface of America's Favorite Homes by Robert Schweitzer and Michael W. R. Davis (both locals, published by a Michigan university). Reviewing that, the section that mentions the subject (kit homes in Ypsi) relates to a single class that one taught and the other attended in 1981 which seems to have inspired them to write the book. Reading it, it doesn't really discuss the subject but talks about architecture in Ypsi in general, some of which was later identified as being related to kit home construction. Like I said, it might be okay, but it's not very strong and isn't of much value in building an article. Stalwart111 02:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think your suggestion of consolidation these into a Michigan-based article is worth considering. That said, Schweitzer is a nationally-known expert on kit homes, having been published in national magazines (including American Bungalow), and "America's Favorite Homes" has been cited in numerous scholarly works. The fact that he's local to Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti and that he did much of his initial research in those communities, is treated as something that detracts from the value of his work when the opposite is true, it highlights the importance of those homes to the topic. This would be like diminishing the scholarly work of an author on the US Presidents because the author happens to live in Washington DC and has their work published by a nearby university. Strange. [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kithousefans (talk • contribs) 03:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kit houses in Michigan with this draft as a base. There aren't enough sources, I think, to support articles about kit houses in individual towns. But the State of Michigan had a particularly notable role in the development of the kit house industry in the United stated during the 20s and 30s. I'd be keen to know if Chris857 would support that solution and I've started a conversation with the nominator on his talk page. Stalwart111 04:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. All the (policy-based) Delete !votes correctly indicate the need for independent sources, but then Green Cardamom does indeed identify sufficient independent sourcing published in notable journals to meet WP:AUTHOR #3, satisfying the thing the Deletes say is lacking. I agree with MelanieN that the article in its current state needs significant work, but as it's often said, "AFD is not for cleanup" Zad68 02:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Childre[edit]

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

This article cites no external sources whatsoever to show the subject's notability - only the author's own website and books. I was tempted to speedy-delete, but he does have one book published by an affiliate of HarperCollins. On balance, though, without sources, I don't think this meets WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I noticed this on NawlinWiki's talk page, and my first reaction was that this is a puff piece. All the sources were written by Childre. I looked on Google for sources, and everything seems to be press release, commercial, or forum/blog in nature. Chris857 (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's transparently commercial, basically an ad. Epaminondas of Thebes (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- need independent sources. Lesion (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doc Childre is the WP:AUTHOR of many books[14] that have received book reviews in reliable sources, per WP:AUTHOR #3 "The person has created .. a well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of .. multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."

Review in Journal of Holistic Healthcare, University of Westminster
Saletnik, Laurie. "Freeze Frame." AORN Journal Feb. 2001: 519. Review of book Freeze Frame (1998)
"The HeartMath Solution." Publishers Weekly 5 Apr. 1999: 236. Book review of same.
Marandino, Cristin. "And the Beat Goes On." Vegetarian Times Feb. 1999: 15. Review of Freeze Frame
Cryer, Bruce. Leadership Excellence. Sep2007, Vol. 24 Issue 9, p13-13. Abstract: "The author cites the stress management program of HeartMath, a company founded by Doc Childre"
Nina Utne. Utne. Sep/Oct2005, Issue 131, p28-28. 1/8p. 1 Color Photograph. Reviews the book "Transforming Stress"

Other Sources NewsBank shows 34 newspaper articles. Most of them are mentions of Childre's books and/or think tank though not dedicated reviews. A couple examples:

Gracie Bonds Staples. "Living with your choices Course of action", The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 30, 2010. Quote: "Doc Childre, the internationally renowned stress expert, said.."
Portia Berrey, "The heart has its own brain.literally." Denver Examiner, September 21, 2009. Summarizes Childre's position on the "brain in the heart".
Media sources at the HearthMath website has 100s of "in the media" sources archived (I have not looked through them for reliable sources about ChildreP).

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped these into the references section for now so they don't get lost. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may be notable (a borderline case), but if the article is kept it needs major editing. Puffery statements like "His works on child development and strategies for dealing with stress have been widely accepted by the medical community[4] as a leading tool for stress reduction and healthier living" and "Childre has dedicated his life to the development of ideas and practices that assist people in their own understanding of how to cope with stress" have got to go. Maybe the article could be stubified until it is rewritten in encyclopedic fashion, but I'm not sure how that could even be done; I could find virtually no biographical information about him from independent sources (as opposed to his own claims from his website and his publishers). Overall I'm leaning toward Delete for lack of sufficient biographical information to base a biographical article on. Maybe an article on Heartmath would be more appropriate. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems more like a CV than a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)

We should vote on the topic, not the current state of the article. Are there enough sources to make a 1-sentence stub? See sources I listed above. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ann Friedrich[edit]

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

Was deleted as A7 and then listed at DRV where some sources were found. The deleting admin consents to restoration subject to an AFD. So here we are. As I closed the DRV I am neutral. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Google news archive search shows multiple possibly-independent-of-each-other reliable news sources with articles from January 2005, March 2005, April 2009, and other dates. Non-paywalled articles are here (The News, New Glasgow, 4/4/09), here (CBC News, 3/9/05), and here (CBC News, 3/15/05). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The embryonic stub article was effectively blanked before another editor requested speedy deletion. This is what it had looked like previously. The DRV was here. Thincat (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because of this person's modus operandi she's got a lot of names. Good search terms include Melissa Ann Weeks, Millie Weeks, Melissa Ann Stewart and Melissa Ann Shephard.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to a sourced rewrite - I was the editor who blanked/stubbed the article due to the lack of reliable sources and to unsourced, sensationalistic claims made within the article. What was there was unsalvageable. I have no objection to the article being rewritten with proper sourcing and an appropriate, encyclopedic tone. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete or if someone is willing to work on it right now, immediately userfy, BUT require that any rewritten article that is based on any existing revision go through some type of review, but not necessarily anything as long as AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:GNG, a topic is considered notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and not a BLP problem as long as all claims are well sourced (which they were last I looked). Hobit (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article as it exists right now is well sourced and the subject is notable. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the crystal-clear consensus already formed. Why the relisting? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Free Baptist Church[edit]

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

Minor religious denomination/sect with no claim to notability attributed to a reliable source. I could not find any evidence online that it actually exists as an actual denomination, and not just an individual church. No substantial coverage could be found about the group from the subject itself, let alone from any reliable sources independent of the subject. Tdl1060 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Standard practice is to keep denominations, which invariably satisfy WP:NONPROFIT. Clicking the "news" link above finds several references to churches within this denomination, and to its world conference. Google searching finds many more churches within this denomination. Cleanup and sourcing is clearly required, but the EFBC are a notable worldwide fundamentalist group. -- 101.119.14.26 (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Most of the articles found by clicking the news link are not referencing churches affiliated with the denomination. In fact many of these articles are from before the denomination was founded. I could not find any article that indicated that there are any actual churches affiliated with this denomination. --Tdl1060 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a denomination, not a local church. It is not a satisfactory article, and certainly needs improvement. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. But is there any reference that can be found to support the claim that it is actually a denomination, or for that matter even an actual church with members, services, etc?--Tdl1060 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was the implication that I drew from the text of the article, such as "The group was formed by churches ..." (plural). It may be a small denomination, but a denomination none the less. I have no evidence other than the WP text before me. One ought to believe that the content is true, until the reverse is proved. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there is no source for the claim, one shouldn't assume that the content is true, and an unverified claim should not form the basis for an article subject's claim to notability. One does not need to prove that unsourced content is untrue for it to be removed from wikipedia. The burden of proof lies with the one adding the content.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - What you are essentially saying is that one should assume that anything that someone writes on Wikipedia is true until the reverse is proven. The only evidence that has been found to exist, to show that this is an actual denomination, is that at one point in time someone wrote on Wikipedia that it was. I have yet to see any evidence that there is even a single church affiliated with this group.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete or userfy until such time that its status as a denomination of more than a few churches can be shown to be reflected in reliable sources OR it otherwise meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC) Can't decide: Recently added reference put me on the edge between "keep" and "delete." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sourcing there is a source listed at the end, so it is unfair to say that anything in the article is not sourced without going to the considerable effort of obtaining a copy of that source and reading through it or making a reasonable guess that a source with that title would not have the information that is in the article. Having said that, the source is NOT a WP:RS so it's useless for determining notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the claims in question, that source clearly violates WP:SELFPUB in that it is used as the only source in the article and it is used to support important claims that are not covered by any other source. Furthermore, there is virtually no way for anyone to verify whether the claims in the article are supported by that source, and since there were significant changes to the article since the initial edit where that was given as the source, it is highly questionable that the source (if it indeed actually exists) reflects the current content of the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally WP:SOURCES state that "source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". Unpublished materials are not considered reliable.". There is no indication that the source in question has ever been made available to the public in any form. As there is no way of verifying whether any of the content in the article is supported by the document presented as a source, it cannot be used to support any of the article's content. Per WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." One should not merely assume that something is true simply because someone has stated on Wikipedia that it is, without presenting any verifiable sources to support their claim.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The denomination certainly exists. It is listed in the U.S.Religious Landscape Survey -- Religious Affiliation: Diverse and Dynamic by the Pew Forum, February 2008 [15]; and in Religion in America: A Directory (James V. Geisendorfer, ed., Brill Archive, 1983, p. 62); and in US Government lists of tax-exempt organisations ([16]). I am surprised that the nom did not find these sources. There are also Evangelical Free Baptist groups in India and the UK, although it is not clear whether they are affiliated with the US denomination. -- 101.119.15.179 (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I am not disputing that the organization exists. I know that there is an organization based out of a small house in North Aurora, Illinois by this name. What I am disputing is the notion that it is a denomination by any traditional sense of the word, since there does not appear to be a single church formally affiliated with this organization.--Tdl1060 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical Free Baptist Churches certainly exist around the world. The organisation based in North Aurora, Illinois also exists. It seems that the relationship between the two is unclear. I have rewritten the article to focus on the denomination. A merge to Free Will Baptist might be a good solution. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 05:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would help editors to evaluate the sources in the article if they were not deleted. -- 101.119.15.204 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article as of 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC) is significantly different and with completely different references than it was at the start of this AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks to be a minor sect but their existance is verifiable and they're certainly large enough having 20+ churches at one point to be considered notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The result was Deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Lankiveil. -- KTC (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fame of Cyprus[edit]

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

Almost everything in here is speculation about a WP:FUTURE TV competition, and contradictory information is given. The text here says that auditions don't begin till November 2013. But the article said December before it was translated from Greek, and it still says December on the website; November 20 is the deadline for entries. Also, according to the website, the judges themselves are still in the nomination stage, which this article also says, but in the sidebar a list is given here as though final. No evidence of WP:Notability given here; no outside source for WP:Verifiability, let alone notability. No indication if it's even going to be seen over any broadcast medium. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 08:21, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Striker[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable fictional character. Reywas92^Talk 06:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus to delete following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton H. Wallace[edit]

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

I can find no significant independent RS on this photographer/producer. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability Reywas92^Talk 06:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unreferenced BLP. Carrite (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plantagon[edit]

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

Re-creation of a previously deleted article. Plantagon is a small Swedish company with only a handful of employees that tries to exploit the long existing ideas of Vertical farming. Most sources in the article are selfpublished, either directly (the company website) or indirectly (mynewsdesk.com etc). The company spends a lot of energy marketing themselves and their CEO (Hans Hassle, an article that is almost exclusively edited by Hassle himself and Plantagon) but have very little success to show in their actual field of business. If the article had mainly showed existing installations, and proof of them being an established company in their field, I wouldn't oppose having the article, but since it's almost exclusively about what the company plans to do, and talk about vertical farming in general, I don't feel it belongs here. Because Wikipedia is not a place for marketing products or ideas. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - and I will take a closer look at the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Yuji[edit]

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

I am concerned that this may not meet the criteria for inclusion, does not appear to be a noted company - establish only in 2005, I cannot locate noted third-party information on the company, internet searches reveal only a plethora of indexing websites, the company's own website, and their facebook page. I may be missing something, so want to open it up to the community at AfD. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 13:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "CompoundSemiconductor" reference in the article is the strongest but the company is just listed there as one of the "other players" in its field. Aside from patent assignations I haven't found anything else that would indicate that this firm passes WP:CORPDEPTH (though happy to revise opinion if someone finds strong Chinese references for example). AllyD (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything that would get this past WP:GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Singers & Players. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War of Words (Singers & Players album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced affair. No evidence it ever made the charts. Fails WP:NALBUMS The Banner talk 20:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Singers & Players, which could use more detail in the discography. --Michig (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]