< 22 October	24 October >

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inga (Young Frankenstein)[edit]

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

This article on a fictional character fails to show the subject is notable separate from Young Frankenstein. Merely appearing in a notable work is not enough, as notability is not inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (even though she does have a great set of knockers). Not even Dr. "Fronkensteen" merits an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nom. This character is not notable. The article was a redirect for approximately three years, and it should have remained one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional character. It's okay to leave a redirect. Carrite (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Young Frankenstein. I see a lot of two or three sentence descriptions of the character in a variety of reliable sources, and am tempted to recommend keeping. But I won't take on that fight. I have enormous regard for Teri Garr who originated the role. But I concede that the character can be covered in the main article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I loved the character, it's not a protagonist or similar major character. Bearian (talk) 19:00, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B. J. Harrison[edit]

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

This article on a fictional character fails to show the subject is notable separate from The Godfather Part III. Merely appearing in a notable work is not enough, as notability is not inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable character that fails the WP:GNG. Trivial mentions exist, but they fail to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable fictional character. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 24 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 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. (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:13, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Secular Society[edit]

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

Author historically acting in bad faith, promotional and highly subjective with little or no objective sources that are directly related. also nn in my opinion. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are plenty of sources coming on - Do you not consider The Scottish Parliament coverage of the Organisation to be significant? In what way is it subjective - It states exactly what the organisation is about! Mgordon42 (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Have included some relevant comments below from original talk for discussion. My own comments: This page demonstrates significant political involvement (Government Website Links) and discourse with the wider community (News and Current Affairs Links), Significant membership, politically engaged; not non-notable. RoslinGenetics (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following two comments below were not posted by these users here. They were copied here from Talk:Scottish Secular Society. Please see my note below in this discussion for further clarification:

~~Keep~~ It informs on the organisation's origins, current role and who it contains. There is no proselytizing or attempt to push a specific point. It is work in progress on a relatively new not-for-profit organisation that is rising to prominence in Scotland. We have a raft of independent sources to be added in the next few days. The information is and will be put forward in a factual manner. The page is work in progress on a relatively new not-for-profit organisation. References will be added very shortly. The organisation is the Scottish equivalent of the UK National Secular Society. Mgordon42 (talk

~~Keep~~ This page describes a recent arrival on the Scottish political scene, which has already presented a petition to the Scottish Parliament and attracted considerable press attention. It is currently the largest secularist organisation in Scotland. This page is the successor to the page "Secular Scotland", because the society has changed its name, and that page now redirects here. OldChemProf (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

End comment. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Than editor's past record is no criterion for nominating an article for deletion. Plenty of refs and notability. It may be young but it is a clearly established organisation. Not overtly promotional in tone.Why has this been nominated? I would suggest a quick withdrawal of the nomination by by the AFD nominator. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable organization. Received significant coverage in The Courier, the BBC, Daily Record, and The Herald. Clearly satisfies WP:ORG. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would suggest to any passing admin that it isn't worth hanging this out for 7 days and this AfD should be closed as per snowball. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note - Per this page's revision history, the !votes above under the names User:OldChemProf and Mgordon42 were not posted at this AFD discussion by these actual editor. See the following diff page. The comments were copied to this discussion from Talk:Scottish Secular Society. Furthermore, User:RoslinGenetics added in the word "keep" to both !votes: diff page. Due to this, I have stricken the word "keep" in those two comments above, and denoted the matter above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note responding to User_talk:Northamerica1000 mea culper I originally had some original text detailing that these were quotes from the quick delete talk of the same page removed by subsequent edits. I hadn't realized that the words "keep" were actual votes as a new user and thought these were summary statements, as such I shouldn't have ascribed this to their text. Thank you for the clarification on my talk page I will advise the individual users accordingly who should be given the opportunity to make their own representation. RoslinGenetics (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your considerate reply. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and I was the one who removed the "<QUOTE>" tags that RG added thinking they were a formatting errors. RG did originally highlight that the comments had been copied. Sorry! Realising my error, I've now put those comments in a ((quotation)) template to make a clear distinction between those comments that were actually posted here and those that were copied here. Apologies for any mix-up that resulted from my clean-up. Stalwart111 23:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a few days ago I would have said kill it with fire as a puff piece BUT even though the editors seem to have a conflict of interest WP:COI I think that enough 3rd party independent references have been added to the article over the past day to establish that within the spirit of WP:ORG for a non-profit national organisation (the region being Scotland which is kind of a tiny country anyway) it is representative and notable enough in this area of secularism. Fromthehill (talk) 07:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Fromthehill Thank you for your link to the WP:COI newbie and have updated my user page with respect to any Conflict of Interests. (Getting into more general editing on WIKI) Not the creator of the page and not in receipt of anything from the society just believe in its core principle. Would love an experienced editor to get their hands on the page to ensure objectivity. There are lots more references and paperwork to support statements. In the process of making more of this publicly accessible to substantiate comments. RoslinGenetics (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Well referenced, satisfies WP:ORG having significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:12, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of correctional facilities in comics. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crossmore[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics 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) 21:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant and recurring plot setting in major works of fiction. A merge to a broader subject is probably worth considering. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions? The prison is located in England, primarily used by an English super hero team, and all of that in a fictional universe to begin with. I don't believe the writers all lived in America that wrote Excalibur. Dream Focus 23:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The United States of America delete sort was added because Marvel Comics, per it's article, "is an American publisher of comic books and related media." In-universe, the fictional location is "British", per the Crossmore article. I hesitate to add the United Kingdom delete sort at this time, because per the Crossmore article, there's no mention of Marvel authors or illustrators being from Great Britain. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of correctional facilities in comics, where this location is mentioned. Gong show 00:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of correctional facilities in comics or Features of the Marvel Universe. I'm not sure which one is more relevant. Regardless, it lacks independent secondary sources and fails to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 05:33, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hageman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Has not played first-team football in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. JMHamo (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS, standard non-notable footballer. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as G10: negative, unsourced BLP. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Rooks[edit]

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sources include court documents (which are ideally reliable sources for verifying the facts of convictions, but of no use at all in showing notability), trivial news reports in obscure publications, press releases, and sources that are not verifiable online. If this is the best anyone can do, then the subject of the article is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those reviewing this article : The article is currently blanked due to alleged BLP violations. Please view this diff for evaluation purposes Gaijin42 (talk)

Delete per nomination, nothing to add. ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete it dose appear that the sources referring to rooks directly are press releases etc. However, "not available on the internet" is not a WP:V failure, so if someone wants to make a claim on the 3rd party stuff that isn't available online, I'm listening. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course perfectly right in saying that "not available on the internet" is not a WP:V failure. I am guilty of carelessness in how I expressed myself. What I meant, and what I should have written, was "Sources include court documents ... press releases. There are other sources too, but since they are not available online, I have not been able to assess their quality." However, I really do think that if this person were notable then, in view of the sort of thing reported in the article, there would have been reports of it in reliable online sources, such as the web archives of significant newspapers, and it seems there aren't any. (I base that statement not only on the fact that whoever has been trying really hard to get this content kept in the article has failed to produce any such sources, but also the fact that i have searched and not found any.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I found substantial coverage of this individual's business activities including: this article. He's also been included in some building tranfers in the Fresno area. That some of the business activities appear to have been illegal makes it all the more important that the subject be covered. Protecting living people cuts more than one way. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I see not the above cited is an official press release of sorts. I will have to look a bit deeper. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. He is mentioned and covered in pasing a bit in the SF Weekly piece and there are some official releases and court docs, but until the man and his apparent history of fraudulent activity are covered in reliable independent sources I don't think we can keep the article. If someone can find coverage in a reliable source I am happy to reconsider. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The full article as it existed can only be viewed in the article history as it has been blanked by an editor as a BLP violation. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

This is an article on a fictional subject that does not establish notability separate from the media it is from. Merely appearing in a known work does not make it notable, as notability is not inherited. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. This has nothing to establish itself as an independent topic, so it does not need an article. TTN (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to appropriate parent subject covering plot settings in the Marvel Universe. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. Lacks independent secondary sources and fails to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge into Features of the Marvel Universe. BOZ (talk) 05:33, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liv and Maddie episodes[edit]

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

A list of episodes for a show that currently only has 9. Should be included in the main show article for now. Beerest355 Talk 19:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree 9 episodes is a small amount for a separate article, the show has a full season order and is consistently airing new episodes so a split to this article was inevitable anyway in the near future. I think it is less disruptive to the project to just keep this article instead of merging it back to the main article, then re-splitting it again in a few months when there are more episodes. I was resisting a split and redirecting to the main article as recently as last week because of the small number of episodes. I stopped doing that for the above reasons. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the rationale of User:Geraldo Perez above, this would eventually and inevitably need to be split from the main article as the number of episodes increases. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I made the split and made valid reasons. Eventually it will need to be split as the number of episodes increases. -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Geraldo Perez makes a persuasive argument. If the show does get surprise-cancelled, we can always just redirect it. It doesn't seem absolutely necessary to take any action at the current time. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:03, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Fryer[edit]

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

Deprodded by author, who doesn't seem to understand WP:GNG as he thought adding the Twitter account would make it all good. Every source here is primary or unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No i didn't think adding Twitter would make it all good, i was just adding to conform, ACase0000 (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It wasn't unduly hard to add a WP:RS source to the article, sufficient to show that Fryer passes WP:GNG. I'm hoping the creating editor will find and add more, remembering that the references must be about Fryer, not by Fryer. I see enough to apply WP:HEY to the article. It is now just on the right side of being retained, but not by that much. More work is required. Fiddle Faddle 22:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage such as this is quite substantial and his prominent (albeit new) role as a newscaster makes him notable (as at top of his profession and in highly public role). Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel optimistic about the potential for this article, given the reliable sources already located. He's also won some awards. I think that pushes him into the realm of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a source about him joining network news. ACase0000 (talk) 04:31, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rees[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA and since he hasn't fought in almost 2 years, he probably won't meet it.Mdtemp (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, Unsourced. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA and article fails GNG with no sources.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:34, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Robinson[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter that fails to meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, Unsourced. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG with no sources except a link to his fight record.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:35, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tengiz Tedoradze[edit]

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

One line article about an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA. Second tier titles don't show notability.Mdtemp (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no sources and doesn't meet NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:40, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquim Ferreira (fighter)[edit]

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

Two line article about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. No independent sources so he fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Claiming notability from fighting a notable fighter is WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, he did beat a UFC champion though, so maybe passes WP:GNG? LiberatorLX (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he beat a guy who became UFC champion 4 years later. Four years is a long time in MMA. Also, notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no top tier fights so he fails WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stegopul[edit]

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

It's not in English and gives no sources to help identify it. According to google it's Albanian but I can't be sure. 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the Speedy went on at about the same time I hit AfD (I swear it wasn't there when I started!) And I didn't know there was a CSD for non English. Will have to go back to page and reread!-- 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 17:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's completely in Albanian. I advised the editor to go to the Albanian Wikipedia. Denisarona (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a CSD for non English. In fact, simply being in a foreign language is specifically ruled out as a CSD criterion under WP:NOTCSD. Generally the procedure in cases like this is at WP:NOTENGLISH: unless it's a direct copy of the corresponding article in the Albanian Wikipedia, (which it isn't) and it doesn't meet any of the usual CSD criteria, then it's best to list it there for translation. The article doesn't seem to be a copyvio and seems to be about a notable topic. There's no rush to delete this, so I'd recommend listing it there first, then prodding it after. Valenciano (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not the correct procedure for non-English content, however regardless of that, per WP:NGEO this is a valid topic. I've removed the Albanian content and stubbed and added basic references to the article. There's a previous redirect to the region article, which I've already pointed to this title as well. I'd recommend a speedy keep actually. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid geographical stub and per WP:NOTENGLISH. Valenciano (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it's off to a decent start. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:22, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hae Jun Yang[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights. Fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:41, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Morris[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:37, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Johnson (fighter)[edit]

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

MMA fighter that doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Looks like he may have to potential to become notable, but right now it's WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON.Mdtemp (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and is not currently fighting for a top tier promotion. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Possible future notability is not a valid argument against deletion. KTC (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MARsite[edit]

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

Scientific project that has produced no publications except a leaflet, a poster and a single newsletter. Non-notable. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The project has been initiated on 1 November 2012 and has a duration of 3 years. It is funded by the European Commission under the FP7 program. The publications resulted from the R&D work undertaken in this project will take place in the 2nd and 3rd year of the project, naturally. The current status with no publications should not be a reason to delete the Wiki web page for this project. The item will be expanded in time. Xonurtan (talk) 15:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, no independent sources (almost at all) which demonstrate notability. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:48, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of The X Factor (UK) episodes[edit]

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

WP:LISTCRUFT article showing by-episode television ratings and airdates for each episode. Article contains episode details that do not meet guidelines in WP:EPISODE (specifically, "Such pages must still be notable, and contain out-of-universe context, and not merely be a list of episode titles or cast and crew: Wikipedia is not a directory.") Also fails WP:NOT#STATS and WP:IINFO. AldezD (talk) 17:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've always thought this article was unnecessary. The ratings for each series are in the articles for each series. One question though - how can this list "contain out-of-universe context" when it's not a work of fiction? –anemoneprojectors– 17:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment —That guideline would likely not apply since this is not a series based upon fiction, but the guidelines about notability and not merely being a listing of episode titles/cast/crew applies. AldezD (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely. You were just quoting in full. I just wanted to check. I agree that the rest applies. –anemone projectors– 08:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is not a list of episodes, which might be encyclopaedic (though I hope not), but a list of their chart ratings, which is certainly not. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Upon clicking on it I was expecting actual episodes, Not ratings .... Not only is the title misleading but the whole article is unencyclopedic. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:12, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler East[edit]

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

MMA fighter that does not yet meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and doesn't look likely to, given that he's not fighting at the top tier and doesn't appear to be a very active fighter. Papaursa (talk) 19:07, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Boiled Childhood[edit]

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

Non-notable film that has yet to come out. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not having coverage to meet the production notability under paragraph 3 of WP:NFF, making this article TOO SOON. IF we were to ever have an article on the arguably notable Debanjan Deb, it might be mentioned therein as an upcoming project. Until then... nope. If its author wishes it back for continued work until notability is a lock, I'd say let it be userfied. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage of this upcoming film. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Combs[edit]

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

Unsourced article about an MMA fighter that doesn't meet WP:NMMA.Mdtemp (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA, Unsourced. LiberatorLX (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NMMA or GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:51, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jocelyn Ducloux[edit]

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

General standard for football players is at least competition in top-level national league if there are no reliable secondary sources. This is an amateur player. Fails GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General standard for presumed notability for football players, which lives at WP:NFOOTBALL, is having played in a fully professional league, as listed at WP:FPL, or at senior international level. Mr Ducloux played for eight seasons in the French second tier, which is listed at WP:FPL, as verified by the external link already in the article. I've written a few explicit words and changed the ext link header to a references. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GS, player has had a lengthy career so best to assume having played in FPL that sufficient sources exist to solve any GNG issues. Fenix down (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:26, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a7 nonnotable, g3 vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Andrew Russell[edit]

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

Unnecessary article Benison talk with me 14:09, 23 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 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. Meets the intentions of the GNG. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive stack[edit]

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

Insignificant detail about the Occupy movement that lacks multiple, reliable sources about the topic to have notability for an article. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that this is a fairly minor topic. However I checked out the sources, which were established publications, and four of them explained in depth what a "progressive stack" is, and used the term. For what it's worth, three seemed to approve and one disapprove. BayShrimp (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources, the "progressive stack" gets one sentence in the New Statesman, some light coverage in the Brattleboro Reformer in an article more about leadership and facilitation at one Occupy group, a dead link for Gay City News, an unreliable source in Truthout in an article about women in the movement, one paragraph in an op-ed from Richmond Times-Dispatch, and one paragraph in a massive feature in a college newspaper. This isn't really "in depth," nor does it meet the standard of "multiple, reliable sources about the topic. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with BayShrimp the sources are enough to meet WP:GNG for a short article on the topic. It's a mechanism of consensus decision-making, as one source says other countries accomplish the same thing through raising hands higher, same idea. Ideally we'd have an article on this model in general before splitting off named variations used by OWS, but until then why not keep this content as it meets GNG. If it disappears in 5 years as a failed experiment and no new sources it can be revisited or merged to OWS, right now hard to tell. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So where are the multiple reliable sources about the topic? Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noticed this article was created by Sue Gardner, Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation, who was not properly notified on her talk page about this AfD. Also noticed this is not the first article created by Gardner that Thargor Orlando has nominated for deletion.[1] Not assuming bad faith as any article is open for deletion, including those created by the Executive Director of Wikimedia, but there is other overlap between these two editors that concern me, such as Orlando's reversion of other Gardner edits such as in War on Women,[2] It's enough overlap evidence to say hey, be aware of WP:HOUND that is all. Also, recommend notify Gardner about this AfD. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I had no idea who made it, and really don't care who it is when it comes to deletions and activity on the site. Apparently being employed by the Foundation doesn't make you immune to articles and edits that are questionable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't matter who creates an article, but the nom (@User:BayShrimp) should've left the author a talk page notification about AfD, it's just common courtesy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see dozens of books using this term, few discussing it in more detail: [3]. Minor topics, but passes GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a thinly-sourced original essay. Not the subject of multiple instances of significant coverage, incidental mentions notwithstanding this fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iain Lawrence[edit]

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

Promotional and lacking secondary coverage. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR by having written works with multiple independent periodical articles or reviews (e.g., [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]; last two retrieved from Highbeam). Gong show 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and GNG. In addition to User:Gongshow's sources he won Canada's national book award (Governor General Award) for Gemini Summer which itself received at least 11 book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Needs sourcing improvements, yes, but a writer who has won a major national literary award most certainly is notable enough for Wikipedia. Keep but flag for cleanup. Bearcat (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the multitude of reviews pointed out by Gongshow, I found this article featuring the author. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good find I've incorporated the info into the article. Appears to be a recluse who doesn't give many interviews or show up for award ceremonies, but sells million+ books about pirates from his secret island base. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you to the above authors for making vast improvements to the article. I retract my nomination for deletion. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:18, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Big Brother 15 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Amanda. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Zuckerman[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for entertainers. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Big Brother 15 HouseGuests (U.S.)#Amanda - not independently notable. --Muchness (talk) 18:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per above; plausible search term but no apparent notability independent of the show. Gong show 22:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No justification for an independent article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Texas Tenors. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 12:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Collins (actor)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:ENT: Does not have two notable roles. Fails WP:MUSIC: No indication of notability independent of group. Fails WP:GNG: Not the subject of substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly per nominator. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Texas Tenors. No independent notability, but a cromulent search term. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A7 Wily D 16:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whispers From The Machine[edit]

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

No notability 🍺 Antiqueight ^confer 12:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete** does not pass WP:GNG. 🍺 Gregg1234 —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 23 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 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. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Wolf (politician)[edit]

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

Notability is not WP:INHERITED, even if the person he's inheriting it from is Obama. There is little coverage of Wolf, who fails WP:GNG. He also fails WP:POLITICIAN as a candidate seeking office without sufficient notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For now (unless and until he attains separate notability through GNG), merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014. This article has a brief paragraph of sourced information about him, which can be added to the appropriate paragraph of the election article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this is the first time this article has been through the AFD process, it has already survived a both a suggested speedy deletion and proposed deletion. Just to get it all into the AFD record, I'm tempted to repost the long discussion from the article's talk page of why this article meets the required notability standard of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article,' but I'll spare everyone. Suffice to say that (i) there are a lot of substantive news stories in reputable publications about this guy; and (ii) he's a regular columnist in a newspaper. I'll be the first to acknowledge that the reason he's getting this coverage and has this soapbox at the Washington Times has a lot to do with the oddity of a Tea Party conservative being (distantly) related to President Obama, but although notability is not inherited on WP, the choice of these outlets to feature Wolf is still 'significant coverage...' for purposes of WP notability. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't really "survive" CSD or PROD. This article wasn't a candidate for CSD, and PROD only requires one objection. I saw the talk page, and I see the argument for keeping this article, but I felt that given the issues with WP:INHERITED and the questions about GNG, a full discussion was warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Of note, this is not Milton Wolf (ambassador) as referenced in this article but he appears to be a colunmnist for the Washington Post WOLF: Save America: Repeal Obamacare, he has been interviewed on Fox News President's Cousin Condemns Obamacare, and has generated regional news in the Wichita Eagle Hundreds attend tax day protests in Wichita. The exposure in the press is reason enough in my view. If you need more, because the subject seems to be writing op-ed pieces for a large publication that may be considered "controversial" in nature, it would also be worthwhile to maintain the article on the subject should any of his work ever be referenced in other articles on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per longstanding consensus for unelected political candidates not named Donald Trump, etc. A politician having been on TV or a person being a distant cousin of the President does not add to the case. Coverage is related to the ongoing campaign; fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect to United States Senate election in Kansas, 2014. While what I say above is true, Arxiloxos is more precise with the way these things are best handled.~~ Carrite (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redacting to yield to consensus. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the list of WP:GNG sources in the article talk page. He has achieved separate notability because the press is writing about him separately as a topic of discussion. It's not as if we (Wikipedia) are saying "he's Obama's cousin therefore he's notable", rather it is the press that is saying that - two different things. The INHERIT essay was not meant to trump WP:GNG and second-guess the press. Normally POLITICIAN would apply since he has not won office, but in this case as Obama's cousin he has additional factors and a lot of sourcing to sway my opinion we should keep for now. It can always be revisited later if nothing new happens. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on John Pomeranz's research as noted on the article talk page. Green Cardamom also has made inciteful analysis of the subject's notability. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A bit off topic... ...but the article's subject has just found and edited the page and put a request in his edit summary. I don't want to engage with him, but it would probably be a good idea for someone to deal with the edit and to let him know about WP:AUTO. (I'm starting to regret opening this can of worms, but I'm still a Keep for purposes of this discussion.) --JohnPomeranz (talk) 12:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment good catch. I made some comments on the article talk page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, Paul. --JohnPomeranz (talk) 16:08, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ante,The Chronic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC, AFAICT.

If this page is deleted, Ante,The Chronic's Production Discography will have to be speedied as well. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Meets G11 guidelines to me for unambiguous advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sulfurboy (talk • contribs)

This page in no is an unambiguous advert, compare to it any article about an artist on Wikipedia and it follows the guidelines. This user page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PriddyUgly is an unambiguous advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfBeats3l (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - strong smell of spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real claim of passing WP:MUSICBIO in article and no RS evidence found in search. Strong smell of self-promotion. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and self-promotion. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional, and equally clearly not notable. Spam. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:45, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Galea[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Seems to be part of a series of self-promotion/promotion by someone connected to the subject. Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess it doesn't meet the criteria, but I think it could be kept with the notability tag, at least for now. But the articles about his EPs and songs should definitely be deleted. — Mayast (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the notability tags on these articles keep being swiftly removed by an IP, so I think leaving it with a notability tag isn't an option. Plus this article has had since March 2011 to establish notability and hasn't done so. It could be userfied, so if he meets the criteria in the future, it could easily be re-added to Wikipedia, but I think its notability needs to be established one way or another at this point, rather than giving it extra time. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If the article doesn't meet the criteria, then it should go.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any substantial independent accounts of Galea. The song "Frontline" doesn't really seem to be a hit so far as I can see.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frontline was a number 1 in Europe and was broadcast to over 500,000 viewers. Both EPs have has substance press over uk and Europe all swell with Grammy winning producers on the records . All should stay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johngalea24 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And your references are? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BAND. And delete any other recording of him per WP:A9. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 14:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm completely with Mayast on this one. Could be kept with the notability tag. Thea Garrett, a Eurovision Song Contest performer, has recorded one of his songs and this has also been reviewed in the Times of Malta. However, I also see Boleyn's point about how the entry could be userfied until further notability is established. He has also collaborated with Scorcher (rapper) on his latest release, so there's that to consider too. Naturally it can be argued that there's a relatively weak case for notability, and there may indeed be elements of self-promotion, but I think deleting it is harsher than assuming good faith and working to establish further notability. --ToniSant (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am with (talk) and ToniSant aswell this page needs to be kept as John is notable figure notability in the UK music industry . Other artists who have achieved lesser have fuller pages. Frontline was number 1 single and his personal tracks do it my way and golddiggin have had promo . Check the refs on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Johngalea24 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Comment Kpepper, can I ask why your very first edit on Wikipedia is on a deletion discussion page? Are you the same user as the blocked User:Johngalea24? Boleyn (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No (talk)I am not thank you. I am editing whatever I want and this seems to be an important issue I would like to address. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC) — Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Johngalea24 (talk • contribs). [reply]

Keep notable UK singer contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calbbb (talk • contribs) — Calbbb (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Johngalea24 (talk • contribs).
Comment Another keep vote on this deletion discussion from another user who also only started editing today? This seems quite concerning. Boleyn (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another comment by (talk) - for someone who edits a lot this is more concerning you seem to have an vendetta against this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Johngalea24 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Keep This article should be kept but adjusted to make it more select in its information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.79.153 (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for notability tag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.70.207 (talk) — 46.233.70.207 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Johngalea24 (talk • contribs).

Delete - I do not see the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that would establish general notability. The best I could find is this local coverage. I also do not see that any of WP:NMUSIC is met. He does not meet any of the criteria for a performer. As a composer, the closest is writing credit for "Frontline" but that isn't a notable composition as far as I can determine. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability popjustice feature , electroqueer feature gaytimes feature , all national features — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC) — Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Johngalea24 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Clerk note: Tagged socks User:Kpepper123 and User:Calbbb within this discussion per this SPI. Closing administrator is advised to discount these !votes accordingly. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 02:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring my comment deleted by sock:

Comment that's now one keep vote from a user blocked because of his behaviour around articles on John Galea (User:Johngalea24) and four 1st. time editors, who all chose a deletion discussion for their first edits. I've reported this for an admin to look into possible WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Kpepper has commented here several times which, without careful reading, would read like separate votes. Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Golddiggin[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONG. Part of a series of articles on this singer which appear to be self-promotion/promotion by someone connected to singer. Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything that proved this song passed Nsong.---SKATER ^Speak. 09:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:NSONG JOE R (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS at this time. Gong show 18:35, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Galea Yunshui 雲‍水 12:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under Attack EP[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NALBUM. Set of articles which appear to be self-promotion/promotion by someone connected to singer. Boleyn (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree that it doesn't meet the criteria. Mayast (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gong show 18:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability rapper Scorcher_rapper is on the record and it has had plays on BBC Radio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.70.207 (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The presence of a particular guest artist is not relevant to notability, neither is being played on the radio. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability Press party and electroqueer and many blog features — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpepper123 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interpreting this comment to mean that the record has been covered at a source called "Press Party" and one called "Electroqueer" along with coverage in blogs. Links to that coverage would be helpful in determining whether those sources meet the standards for reliability required to establish notability. Blogs, which tend to be self-published and not subject to independent editorial control, generally do not meet those guidelines. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Both the IP and User:Kpepper123 have been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:53, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center[edit]

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

Article before content was stripped off

This is certainly not notable by any stretch of the imagination. It ain't Harvard University, for one thing. This is just a student center in an obscure town in the middle of nowhere with street names like Chacabuco displaying pictures of its students, one of millions in the world. Next thing, every student center, for example Milo Bail Student Center in Omaha, Nebraska, in every small unknown town would want to have a Wikipedia article.

QUICK DELETE this article - It looks like an advertising page for a student or an alumnus which must be removed from an encyclopedia. Worldedixor (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 07:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, this is not notable. LT910001 (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, LT910001, for acting in good faith. Worldedixor (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is fairly referenced, with reliable sources, which makes it comply with WP:N. Note aside: this is just one more of the chapters of unfounded harassment by user Worldedixor, fyi, have a look at some of his unfriendly comments and provocations, which I have not responded (This is actually the first I respond, I sincerely don't understand why he has gone mad, I said from the first time I was not letting his article be deleted, once again, ask that Golden guy): [13] [14] [15] [16]. As I said on the GA review, please remain civil, I am not here for your insults, I only tried to help. Kind regards, Küñall (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Being referenced with reliable sources does not in itself establish notability. And the behaviour of editors elsewhere is of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andy. If you believe, in Wikepedia's best interest, that this article must be deleted or kept, kindly say Delete or Keep, so there is no room for speculation and the afd can come to a speedy conclusion. Worldedixor (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that given what has gone on between you and Küñall, it would be in Wikipedia's best interst for you not to inflame matters further: I will make my own mind up regarding my final !vote, without your help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and agree. Sometimes it is difficult to remain civil when instigated. Worldedixor (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a nomination is made in bad faith, it matters. Küñall (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stay on topic - regardless of the initial motivation for nomination, it seems entirely reasonable for others to ask what makes this subject matter notable. I can see no reason why a student representative body for a primary/secondary school with 547 pupils would be inherently notable: could you give a shortlist of the references which you consider give the in-depth coverage of the students center necessary to establish this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I can see absolutely no reason why Küñall or his student center are notable, and, as any sensible editor would opine, it is clearly my opinion that this article must be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. However, in a last ditch and good faith effort to satisfy my analytical mind, I must give Küñall the benefit of a "reasonable" doubt. Who knows? Perhaps, he and his student center are indeed notable, and his pictures with his pals should indeed be included in Wikipedia because they are notable. So, I echo your request for Küñall to produce references, and I am genuinely willing to officially withdraw this afd which can easily be defeated by Küñall if he can only reply here with "verifiable" evidence from "reliable sources" of his own notability, the notability of his pictures, and the notability of his student center, methodically outlining his life achievements that make him notable. A notable person would be someone like Larry page or Justin Beiber. Worldedixor (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In no way this is as known as Justin Bieber or Larry Page, there's no comparation. However, there are relatively some good sources which cover the organization in depth or some of its activities; it's a shame that some of them are offline, however, but they are easily available in physical format at the National Library of Chile, in Santiago, and their existence can be checked at bncatalogo.cl. Those sources include: "Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre ansiosos por competir en las Olimpiadas de Actualidad" (El Rancaguino), ""La alegría de comparsas, corsos, carros alegóricos y reinas -de la Fiesta de la Primavera- revivirán centros de alumnos" (Pichilemu News, online), ""Buscan revivir la Fiesta de la Primavera" (El Expreso de la Costa), ""En el Liceo Agustín Ross: Lo que dejó al desnudo el paro y la toma" (also in El Expreso). The remaining section, which describes its presidents, most of whom are already over 18 (excepting the president for this year, and the 2011 president, who is turning 18 in three days or so). It's important to note that this is a spinoff article from the school, since it had so many sources it would clutter the main article, so if we are to delete, it would be better than nothing to merge the content with the school article. Worldedixor, I appeal to your common sense, and please withdraw this nomination, there's absolutely nothing you could lose now. Kind regards, Küñall (talk) 14:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I completely agree that the school itself is notable as per Wikipedia's policy on high schools but not you and not your student center. I am not sure whether you are manipulating things to justify placing your pictures all over Wikepedia. Please help me understand and verify that 1. You are indeed a notable person in this world and that Wikipedia must allow your own pictures in this article as well as in the school article. 2. that the student center (not the high school) is also notable. As of now, I am not convinced. So, simply list your own achievements that make you a notable person as well as the student center's achievements (not the school achievements) that make it notable. Just to help with examples, a student becomes notable if he or she created something like Wikipedia, or presented a design for a flying car, or has an exceptional singing voice like Myriam Hernandez. Until your notability is established, I have removed all your pictures from this article and will remove pictures from the school article. Also, your plea that I withdraw the nomination of this afd is denied at this time.Worldedixor (talk) 20:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. ref1 is a primary source, the ministry sources 3 &4 are general decrees that do not mention this particular student club/center and I would argue that by default they would be a primary source also, & ref2 is offline so I cannot judge it's significance but only appears to be used to support establishment date. 78.105.23.161 (talk) 08:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is established Wikipedia policy that secondary schools are automatically conferred with 'notability'. There is nothing in policy which suggests that this applies to a student representative body for a school, and it is entirely evident that sources which refer to activities by the school are being (mis)represented as about the representatives. To add to that, it seems evident that the article itself (as presented by the creator) is grossly unbalanced, and goes into excessive detail about the 'presidents' of this body - and it is entirely clear that the reason why is that the article creator is (as is made clear by a link to a personal website on the creator's user page) a past president. In summary, this is an exercise in vanity publishing, and does not in any way whatsoever belong on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not make articles on student centers except under exceptional circumstances--the notability is too local. Perhaps we should ,but some degree of consistency in decision is desirable. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A centro de alumnos (student government) at a secondary/elementary school is very unlikely to be notable, and nothing here convinces me that this one is. Much of the prior content of the article has been edited out already, and what is left doesn't appear to include any directly relevant independent sources (i.e. discussing this student government as opposed to Chilean student governments in general). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Student centers are not automatically notable, and looking over this article has failed to convince me this one is. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with what has been written above.--El Mayimbe (talk) 21:47, 26 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omega "El Fuerte"[edit]

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

Does not meet wp:Artist and has no other references besides personal website Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} 06:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found 4 references. He does meet wp:Artist as he helped create a new genre of music, see references 2 and 4. I just stumbled upon this article, originally Omega y su Mambo Violento and I redirected it and have begun fixing it. He is also signed to a well known record label and has been producing music since 2007. --El Mayimbe (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has albums and songs that ranked on the Billboard charts. Erick (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He does meet wp:Artist and well referenced. Osplace 04:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Diva Knockouts 04:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Kreken[edit]

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

Prod declined by anon a while back. Fails WP:GNG, no notability shown, no coverage in mainstream sources; or even reliably WP:FOOTY sources. No article on pl wiki, neither. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning that the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per GS, has not played FPl or senior intl football. Fenix down (talk) 09:39, 24 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 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Babatunde Ogunnaike[edit]

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

This university professor is a dean and associate editor, but does not meet the notability inclusion criteria of WP:PROF. Also, this article is written by a single author ~~with reference only from the institution where the subject works suggesting no widespread recognition.~~Alan.ca (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Alan.ca (talk) 04:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 04:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to view the notice on Babatunde Ogunnaike which I just created. I acknowledge the fact that Wikipedia has so many rules and regulations especially regarding articles on living people. Please, could anyone help me shed more light on the notability inclusion criteria of this AfD on a layman's terms?.....Thanks! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eruditescholar (talk • contribs)

If you follow a link to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), you'll see an extensive treatment. For a condensed version, look at the nutshell at the top. What's unclear? PS. The bottom line: for an individual to be notable, it helps to have independent, mainstream sources. This article does not suggest that the person covered has attracted attention of any such sources, coverage comes either from employeer/own pages, or niche publications of dubious reliability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PROF as written; no evidence of mainstream coverage, or notable research or achievements (deans do not qualify, per "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc.) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6"). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF#C3 as a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He also passes #C1 through his high-citation publications (8 with over 100 cites in Google scholar) and #C5 as the holder of a named chair. Only one of these criteria would be enough; he doesn't also have to pass #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. passes WP:Prof#C1,3,5. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Minimal checking shows an easy pass of WP:Prof#C1, WP:Prof#C3, and WP:Prof#C5. I also note over 800 citations for his book Process dynamics, modeling, and control. A totally incomprehensible nomination. -- 101.119.15.235 (talk) 00:33, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Pagliarulo[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable academic. Some of the awards are from a state-level professional society. If this person is notable, the references do not show it. Also, the references listed are not sufficiently independent from the person to be useful in judging his notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Appears to be a leader in his field and authored an Introduction to Physical Therapy Elsevier/Mosby, Apr 28, 2011 - Medical - 388 pages which looks to have been printed in several editions. Several awards are also noted in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leader? The book has only 9 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is that a lot or a little for authors in this field? Some other works noted in Scholar [17] Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find only 19 citations in Google scholar (plus onejoint paper with 45 cites). We typically require of the order of 1000 citations to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You guys make some good arguments. At least one award is verifiable. There's also a bi about his family here. My keep is weakening, but I still think there is some notability. Lots of academics publish, but a textbook that appears to have some use as well as his other publications and descriptions of his role in the field I think is enough to pass prof and/or academic notability standards. Maybe.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator reply to Candleabracadabra's earlier comment: I would love to be wrong about this guy, but I also find a low number of citations (I found about 110-120 over his career, when you add in "MA Pagliarulo" and "Michael A. Pagliarulo" and take out false positives. Admittedly some older works of his may not be in Google Scholar.). Writing a book is not an indicator of notability for those in academia, and under 120 citations seems a bit low for a retired professor to qualify as notable if his notability criteria is being a leader in the field. As I said in the nomination, most of the awards seem to be state-level awards from his own professional society. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: I also declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael A. Pagliarulo for reasons of lack of notability. I'm stating this here because, having put my reputation on the line with the AFC submission among my peers at AFC, I should not be considered completely unbiased in this matter. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Web of Science lists 26 articles for "Pagliarulo M" (most from other people, actually), that have been cited a cumulative total of 158 times, for a joint h-index of 7. Even if this was all the same person, that's a far cry from what we usually accept here as indicating notability. Unless somebody finds evidence that his book is/was widely used as a textbook, this does not meet WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Appears to fail general notability guidelines at this time due to trivial mentions in sources. Perhaps in the future! SarahStierch (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oneword.com[edit]

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

Tiny website. Only coverage cited, while not too trivial, is incidental. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The one source would probably keep it from being speedied, even though the link itself doesn't actually link to anything anymore. I can't find any reliable coverage for this website, not even the purported Yahoo link. This just isn't a notable website. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not hugely notable I did find coverage of the website in a news source and several books, all of which look to be reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent I'm the creator of oneword.com, and have officially trademarked the term "oneword," So I'm fine if the ".com" is removed from the title, revising it to "oneword" with a simple one-line description, such as, "oneword is a simple writing prompt created in 2002. It gives users one word per day and sixty seconds to write about it." All the other stuff is superfluous. Or delete it. I'm indifferent as to whether or not there is a Wikipedia page. Thanks. Invisibleland (talk) 23:11, 24 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 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. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transdisciplinarity[edit]

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

An original research essay written by proponents of the fringe idea integral theory. jps (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inherently notable. Source examples include: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. I haven't delved into the quality of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:49, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integral psychology[edit]

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

A synthesis of many different ideas, there is no reliable source that connects the disparate thinkers proposals together. Also, a problem in terms of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites sources published by John Wiley and SUNY, among others. These are not reliable sources? — goethean 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Entire books are devoted to/elaborate upon the topic; passes WP:N. For starters, see: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some work but the topic seems definitely notable as per references mentioned and both prominent individual Ken Wilber and institutional home California Institute of Integral Studies Depthdiver (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neologism. Merge with Ken Wilber. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goethean. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:45, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Underground EP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An unofficial bootleg album that fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. I would not object to a redirect to the artist's page if consensus goes that way. Gong show 20:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and above reasoning by Gongshow. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 18:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. KTC (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capital Steez[edit]

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

Non notable rapper, he did not receive a significant amount of coverage until he died and that still was not enough to pass WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was one of the Founders of Pro Era and along with crewmate Joey Bada$$, had gained a large following on YouTube and hip-hop blogs and provided influence to most members of Pro Era and the Beast Coast expecially Joey , also he was included in HipHopDX’s list of Top Artists To Watch For In 2013 so i guess that makes him a notable person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akapa47 (talk • contribs)
Comment "A large following on YouTube" does not constitute notability. Koala15 (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very substantially covered in reliable independent sources already cited in Wikipedia's article. If someone could improve the cites that would be great, otherwise they may become deadlinks in the future and we may not be able to easily ascertain the sources. Unclear why this was nominated. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A sampling of available material [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] suggests that this artist had started to garner attention from notable sources prior to his death, and coverage for him has multiplied in subsequent months (not only in late December), enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 00:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Gongshow, prior to his death he had begun to get coverage and praise from multiple reliable sources. Not to mention he has still since got coverage since his death (which received an insane amount of coverage), due to his upcoming posthumous mixtape being released soon. Pro Era is also notable enough for its own article but no one has written it yet, which even further establishes his notability since he co-founded the group. Seems to meet WP:MUSICBIO to me. STATic message me! 00:23, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John G. Fuller[edit]

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

Seems like a non-notable author. Though one of his books was reviewed in the New York Review of Books by Martin Gardner and another one's title may have served as the basis of a Gil Scott-Heron song, it is unclear that this satisfied the requirements of WP:BIO. jps (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per his obituary in The New York Times [37] he passes both WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE as the author of multiple works that have received coverage in reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. His two Broadway plays only lasted a few days each,[38] but a NYT obituary is pretty solid evidence of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet WP:WRITER with multiple reviews of The Poison that Fell from the Sky cited in article (not all online) and We Almost Lost Detroit also having its own article. Are the Kids All Right? was controversial in its time and received widespread coverage too[39][40]. And here's an article from OMNI on archive.org.[41] I've tidied up the article and added some refs, though it needs improvement; but coverage in New York Times indicates he's likely to have also been discussed in other lesser newspapers that are less easy to find. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but pay attention to presentation of WP:FRINGE topics. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Evans[edit]

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

I do not believe that the notability requirements of Wikipedia are met by this author. jps (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough to have received substantial, serious obituaries in both The Daily Telegraph [42] and The Guardian [43]. WP:BEFORE would be helpful here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews in reliable sources + WP:GNG obituaries.

Gillian Bennett. "Seeing Ghosts: Experiences of the Paranormal by Hilary Evans", Folklore, Vol. 115, No. 3 (Dec., 2004), pp. 373-374 (JSTOR)
Steve Rybicki. "The Picture Researcher's Handbook by Hilary Evans, Mary Evans, Andra Nelki", RQ, Vol. 15, No. 2 (WINTER 1975), p. 174 (JSTOR)
Christina Bostick. "Picture Sources by Ann Novotny, Rosemary Eakins; The Picture Researcher's Handbook; An International Guide to Picture Sources—And How to Use Them by Hilary Evans, Mary Evans, Andra Nelki", ARLIS/NA Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 6 (OCTOBER 1975), pp. S8-S9 (JSTOR)
Nina Auerbach. "Ghosts of Ghosts", Victorian Literature and Culture, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2004), pp. 277-284 (JSTOR)
George Guffey. "Science Fiction: History-Science-Vision. by Robert Scholes, Eric S. Rabkin; Beyond the Gaslight: Science in Popular Fiction, 1895-1905. by Hilary Evans, Dik Evans; H. G. Wells and Modern Science Fiction. by Darko Suvin, Robert M. Philmus", Nineteenth-Century Fiction, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jun., 1979), pp. 112-117 (JSTOR)
Williams, David R. "Beyond the Gaslight (book review)." Library Journal 6/1/1977, Vol. 102 Issue 11, p1278. (EBSCO Masterfile)
Lombardi, Robert. "Visions Apparitions Alien Visitors (book review)." School Library Journal. Feb85, Vol. 31 Issue 6, p92. (EBSCO Masterfile)
Fraser, Robert S. "The Picture Researcher's Handbook (Book Review)." Library Journal. 10/1/1975, Vol. 100 Issue 17, p1809. (EBSCO Masterfile)
Karlin, Daniel. "It isn't believing." Times Literary Supplement. 6/14/2002, Issue 5176, p36. Book review Seeing Ghosts. (EBSCO Masterfile)
"Intrusions (book review)." Atlantic (02769077). Mar1982, Vol. 249 Issue 3, p89. (EBSCO Masterfile)
"Harlots, Whores and Hookers", Kirkus, November 15, 1979

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG thanks to new references. I'd add to the above:[44][45][46] --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obituaries in at least two major national newspapers certainly meet our notability requirements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep -- A lot of books on UFOs over a considerable period. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the standards as a notable person; see also WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. SarahStierch (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midlands Ghost Research Society[edit]

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

This is a very minor society that fails WP:CORP. jps (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. The citations are to a single source, Coventry Evening Telegraph, all from the same year 2005 (except one small article in Nottingham Evening Post). Basically two sources from 2005. A quick search didn't find much but maybe there is more offline. The existing sources are enough for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia with redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent subject. insufficient independent notability. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Association for the Scientific Study of Anomalous Phenomena. Fails WP:CORP with no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm not utterly convinced that this is the absolutely correct target, but I don't see a better one. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The infobox says 7 staff, but it is improbable that these are employees: 7 members is more likely. If so, it is clearly NN and we should not even redirect to a larger body of which they (or one of them) may have become a member. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the rules about smaller organizations being non-notable. The sources seem sufficient enough to justify a redirect. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:15, 24 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 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. KTC (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Egnew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to be a WP:VANITY piece, but, more importantly, this person does not seem to be notable for anything in particular. She has had minor acting/directing roles and made a documentary that didn't receive much notice. As such, I think that WP:BIO would seem to indicate she is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Last deletion debate from 2005 was from before the notability guidelines were firmly in place. jps (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this is a Vanity piece in that I removed the unsourced material and references that went back to her own website. And I've learned that just because I am unfamiliar with a person, it does not mean that they are "not known" Cap020570 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While I agree the subject's notability is questionable if qualifying under WP:ENT, I would submit that the subject is notable per WP:MUSIC with a significant discography with independent secondary source coverage (criterion 1), participating as a voting member of the Grammys and has received award recognitions for her folk recordings (criterion 9). Nmillerche (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nmillerche. The case for notability under MUSIC seems fairly clear. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:18, 25 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sculpturenes[edit]

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

Non-notable. Ref is to the only article I can find that mentions this term (which self-declares as the coining of the term). No articles cite this ref (checked PhysRevB's entry and Scopus), which is pretty bad for the lead ref and original publication on the topic...lack of secondary refs to support notability of primary research. DMacks (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into graphene. A single paper's neologism does not an article make, per WP:GNG and WP:NEO.--cyclopia ^speak! 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Little evidence of usage. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I would very much like to keep this subject, but all the sources appear to be primary. It expect the subject to establish notability along with its proponent Laith Algharagholy in the near future. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. The term occurs only in an uncited paper by Algharagholy et al. -- 101.119.14.226 (talk) 12:40, 25 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 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. Necessary reliable sources to pass GNG have been established during the discussion. (Note: Let's try to open AFDs with an actual policy based, easily understood reason in the opening statement please.) — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 23:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WheelTug[edit]

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

As for the adjacent AfD., though there seems to be a recent press release. DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to elaborate, maybe provide a rationale for deletion? YSSYguy (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep. A rationale for deletion is not provided; referring to another AfD's rationaile is not valid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this wasn't SK'd, changing to a traditional keep per YSSguy's finding of sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, sources are all PR, and speedy keeping would be pointless bureaucracy since I understand just fine what the nom is saying. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well my mind-reading abilities are obviously on the blink, because I don't know what the reason/s for deletion is/are. At any rate, my !vote is to keep - it is very easy to find significant coverage of the subject, thus it passes the WP:GNG. Such coverage hasn't made its way into the article, but that's just a sign of lack of editing, not lack of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@YSSYguy:Where are you finding third party coverage? I found nothing on Gbooks, and the only Gnews hits are the press releases already in the article and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I am talking about old-school paper media; magazines covering airlines, airport ground handling, aircraft maintenance and airports that I read while I am eating my lunch, in which collectively the subject is mentioned several times a year. YSSYguy (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rationale and current status of the article aside, there seems to be a decent amount of coverage for this subject (e.g., [47][48][49][50][51]). Gong show 22:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent subject Borealis Exploration Limited. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient good sources to even expand the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established, sources are all PR MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Gongshow found, there's [52], [53], [54],[55] and [56] to refute that. YSSYguy (talk) 13:28, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Borealis Exploration. WheelTug has established enough notability to have its own article, this has not. Therefore, the best course of action here is a merge as discussed below. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chorus Motors[edit]

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

The article seems to be entirely unverified promotional claims. I can find nothing on the web after 2010; nor any investor data after that year DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to say Delete, notability of the subject of the article is not established and the tone is unencyclopaedic. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or at least redirect to the parent company. Why would we delete entirely a subject when we have an article on its parent company Borealis Exploration Limited? Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and WheelTug another subsidiary to the parent Borealis Exploration. It is not clear why this is a PLC rather than a private limited company, but I doubt we need an article on each subsidiary. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be entirely unverified promotional claims. MatsTheGreat (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There is not much there, maybe just 3-4 sentences that could be reliably sourced but it is a legitimate subsidiary. Wall Street Journal, Businessweek -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Mahmoud Shoolizadeh. --Cerebellum (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless (film)[edit]

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

I am admittedly having trouble doing a solid Persian-language search for this filmmaker and film, but to the best of my abilities, I can find no WP:RS in any tongue indicating notability for this 30-minute Iranian video (or film), apparently about homelessness in the West. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 17 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on director Mahmoud Shoolizadeh. I'm not seeing significant coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merege to writer, director, etc. Mahmoud Shoolizadeh. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:09, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labbayk[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:BAND, all sources appear trivial, primary or promotional in nature. Loomspicker (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 17 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. If anyone can find some I am happy to reconsider. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:11, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Infanta Ana de Jesus Maria of Portugal. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Carlota de Mendoça Rolim de Moura Barreto[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography. No claim of notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Augusto_Salazar_e_Bragança. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 17 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to article on her mother. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is good by me. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Clear consensus here, as no sources were provided by Candleabracadabra. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Futuristic (rapper)[edit]

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

The subject is not notable and, the article, having been created by an affiliated entity and edited only by SPA IPs, is wholly promotional. The article claims that one of the artist's albums reached #86 on the Billboard charts (which, if true, would establish notability) but I have been unable to verify this claim. If someone can do so then I would withdraw my objections on notability grounds. JohnInDC (talk) 14:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 16 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All coverage seems to be promotional. One phoenixnews result is a blog. JOE R (talk) 1:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable and that Billboard claim appears to be wrong. Can't even find the man on Billboard's own site. Yintan 00:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The chart position was fake, fails WP:MUSICBIO.STATic message me! 18:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aeternae[edit]

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

Non-notable, and perhaps non-existent. Have found entry in only one similar "encyclopedia"[57], and one may be derivative of the other. The word Aeternae is a Latin adjective (see Aeternitas), as search results will reflect, but these creatures are associated with Alexander the Great, whose early legends appear in Greek. In what texts do these supposed creatures appear? Do they come from medieval narratives, or are they a non-notable invention of a fiction writer? If there are no other sources, the article comes perilously close to plagiarizing a single encyclopedia. I searched "Aeternae Alexander India" on JSTOR and Google Books, and was unable to find anything. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 7. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Unable to determine notability. {_C A S U K I T E ^T} 15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - note that the fact the name is in Latin does not mean anything. Lots of material in the Alexander romance (which would be the source for these creatures, if anything) is written in Latin. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reference from the Carol Rose Encyclopedia. I could check this book tomorrow, but I assume the reference is correct. So there are two legitimate editions mentioning it. As for the one by these two, John and Caitlin Matthews, I'm not so sure: They seem like they might be a reliable source for this sort of subject matter; I don't know. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw both those, but they are so similar it seems that one may be derived from the other. If the Aeternae actually exist somewhere in Alexander narratives, why don't they turn up in searches? The oddity of the Latin name could indicate that the name has been misunderstood. Perhaps there was a Greek name that resembled the Latin word, the familiarity of which led one of these two sources to transcribe it incorrectly. That would explain why we can't find other sources. The two encyclopedia entries are insufficient to establish notability: one may simply be drawing on the other, and neither one provides any leads (such as mentioning primary sources) that would allow us to check for other spellings. Carol Rose's encyclopedia would be a sounder source than the Matthews', but again the question is why we can't find any other evidence for the existence of this mythical people. I'm guessing it's because the spelling of the name is in error, but unless we can determine other spellings, notability remains insufficient. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will go look up the MacMillan source then. Tomrrow (promise? I better not). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:24, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep? These appear in a lot of mythical creature compilations of dubious scholarship, but I'm struggling to determine whether there's any basis for them in antiquity. Their general location (northern India) and their horn(s) are about the only consistent features; not all references make mention of Alexander the Great, and depictions are divided about whether the aeternae are vaguely humanoid or bestial. Oberon Zell-Ravenheart (not that I'd consider him a qualified expert in this field) included them in A Wizard's Bestiary (p. 15) as the latter, suggesting it may be a mythologized Siberian ibex (naturally providing no sourcing for such claims). It's my suspicion that all these recent sources are actually derived from the 1971 Barber and Riches book, which is somewhat out of Barber's area of topical expertise (Arthurian legend), but at least has a legitimate historian attached to it -- and which, sadly, I don't seem to have rapid access to. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:20, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and consider merging to appropriate target covering the campaign or similar subjects. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have many of the possible sources at hand, but Richard Stoneman's Everyman Legends of Alexander the Great includes a translation of "Alexander's Letter to Aristotle", containing the passage

From there we followed the direction of the east wind until we came upon some wild beasts. They had bones projecting from the tops of their heads like sharp jagged swords. They struck many of our soldiers with these and pierced their shields. The soldiers killed as many as 8,450 of them.

No mention of the name Aeternae. I'm inclined to say weak delete unless someone can come up with an explicit mention of this "race" in some actual ancient or medieval work—or at least something better than pop encyclopedias of legendary beings. Does anyone have access to an edition of the Alexander Romance? Deor (talk) 13:57, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Startup company. Given the argument and sources made by Edison, it is obvious that this is not simply a failed or barely used neologism. Therefore, the best course of action is a merge as discussed below. For the purposes of closing this AFD I've selected Startup company, but this is not necessarily binding and can be changed if the involved editors find a better location for the data. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Startup investing[edit]

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

This appears to be wp:artspam for Rock the Post's new “Startup Investing” program. See the external link to their announcement page [58]. Also, the term is not used in the four references for the abstract. Nowa (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (post) @ 17:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. I'd have requested speedy deletion. The creator of the article has a COI and should be blocked for continuing to edit against WP:COI to promote his personal interests and use Wikipedia as a means of promotion. --Ronz (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' -- With the passing of the JOBS Act the word startup investing is becoming a movement. The article should not be deleted as it is intended to educate people. There is a lot of coverage in the media that can be found as a result of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission General Solicitation ban lift from September 23, 2013 all using the word startup investing as a way to explain and describe this action. In addition, the sources on the article include the most renown financial publications like the Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal, or Bloomberg L.P.. --acremades (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources that demonstrate this. --Ronz (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment'-- As requested here are some references where startup investing is used.
Startup Investing Trends by Paul Graham http://www.paulgraham.com/invtrend.html

9 Things You Need To Know About Startup Investing by Forbes http://www.forbes.com/sites/tanyaprive/2013/03/18/9-things-you-need-to-know-for-startup-investing/

VC 101: Houston Fund Gives Students Startup Investing Experience by Xconomy http://www.xconomy.com/texas/2013/09/23/vc-101-houston-fund-gives-students-startup-investing-experience In addition, there is a complete entire section on Reddit about Startup Investing that can be found on this link http://www.reddit.com/r/startupinvesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acremades (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 October 2013‎
If that's the best available, then it should be deleted. It's a neologism that's barely used. --Ronz (talk) 04:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'-- these are just a few examples of many. Please go to Google and type in startup investing. On the search result for news you will be able to see thousands of articles that use this exact keyword. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acremades (talk • contribs) 04:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea to first edit the article to remove company specific promotional materials. Then finding suitable references may be easier.--Nowa (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'-- Please consider reviewing this comment http://www.usv.com/posts/startup-investing from Fred Wilson (financier) where he states "crazy that they are considering deleting that entry" with regard to this deletion nomination. Fred Wilson (financier) is one of the most respected Venture Capitalists in the world with investments in companies such as Twitter, Tumblr, Foursquare, Zynga, Kickstarter, and 10gen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acremades (talk • contribs) 15:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant. As we repeatedly state, it comes down to sources, not opinions. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've invited them to join the discussion.--Nowa (talk) 18:56, 17 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. The article might need to be a bit broader, to avoid giving undue weight to one company or approach, but the term "startup investing" has been used sometimes as a synonym for "seed investing" for the past several years, and is not a failed neologism or a neologism which hasn't gained common use. See, from a Google Book search, a few of the results:[59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Perhaps this could be merged to Startup company. Edison (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The closest article I can find is Seed money. Is there anything better for a merge? --Ronz (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Startup company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is sensible, but where to is unclear. AfD is not meant as the place to discuss mergers, pardon the pun. This seems to be a bit of a neologism. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 24 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3 Magic Shots[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable as sites like KillerStartups and MacTrast don't seem to meet our reliable source criteria. (KillerStartups especially; people can submit their own projects to be covered, in some cases for money.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. I also agree that the sources in the article don't seem to be reliable. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Sociallyacceptable (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above, appears non-notable, sources are not reliable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 20:47, 29 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable; Coverage is limited is to sources like Encyclopedia Metallum, which is largely user-generated. Other, independent coverage is insignificant. Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 23 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mavatar[edit]

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

Founded in 2011, this company has a Web site with an Alexa ranking of 292,974 in its home country and 757,999 globally [66] and offers (since this 22 February) a free Ipad app that has not yet received any reviews within the Itunes store. I searched Google News [67] and its archives [68] but didn't find other coverage there. The bizjournals.com story cited in the article seems to be based on information from a press release [69]. —rybec 07:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

The Bis Journals source is about the chairman not the company itself.
MCommerce source is definitely about the company.
Huffington post reference is an employee being interviewed by the Huffington Post so is not independent of the company and can be discounted in terms of establishing notability.
Mention in the PC magazine article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:CORDEPTH as it is being included in a list along with others.
Women 2.0 article is about the creator of Mavatar not the company itself.

Notability, per WP:GNG & WP:ORG is not established in the article through sources which are independent and provide depth. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:45, 30 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edel O'Mahony[edit]

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

contested speedy. Article reads like advertising, lacks quality biographical sources, and most references are articles penned by the subject. Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 08:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks like it should be a notable topic. The problem is the sources are by Edel O'Mahony (articles/interviews) and nothing about Edel O'Mahony. The books have not received book reviews in reliable sources (or anywhere I can find). Maybe as her career progresses she will have more/better sources that comply with WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:49, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator's and Green Cardamom's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 14:17, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. From the sources provided it does not seem that enough notability has been established to meet WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG or WP:BAND. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 15:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sienna Skies[edit]

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

Non-notable band lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. The one non-trivial reference in the article is a review of an album by the group. Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 12:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I de-speedied it as there was some form of notability asserted (my edit summary gives more detail), and because it was tagged rather too close after creation for my liking. However, in terms of in-depth, reliable sources I can't turn up any more than [70], which is already present in the article, and given how low the review score is, I can't see there being much point userifying it, as my crystal ball doesn't see there being enormous hope for this band to become more notable, and there really isn't much in the article anyway. I can find plenty on them having toured with notable bands, and this source of questionable reliability, plus a few things on them signing for InVogue Records, but that's about it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:51, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Lukeno94 above, I found some articles that mention this group opening for/touring with notable bands, but I am unable to find evidence of significant coverage that would help to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 00:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - have just undertake my own quick search on the band & have found numerous references, inlcuding one that indicates the band toured New Zealand in 2007, 2010 and 2013 - as well as touring (numerous times) the eastern states of Australia. In 2012 the band signed with an international label, inVogue Records, who released their second album. This would appear to be getting close to if not satisfying criteria #4 & 5 of WP:NMUSIC. I think that the original editor should be given some time to bring the article up to speed, with some assistance from some more seasoned editors. Dan arndt (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Care to share some of them in here? 90% of the references in WP:RS I found were pieces about them signing on to InVogue, and nothing else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry R/L interferring with my wiki-editing - just a quick response - try [71], [72], [73] & [74]; inVogue Records: [75], [76], [77], [78]. If I had the time at the momment I'd try and assist by improving the article - maybe in the next couple of days. Dan arndt (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those are routine announcements about tours or being signed. The AllMusic source proves absolutely nothing whatsoever - it's just an album list. Only two sources, in fact, aren't purely routine; and they're the first two. Of those two, the first one is very clearly a press release, and isn't independent of the band (they're selling the band's tickets) - the second one, assuming it's a reliable source (which it does appear to be), is literally the only thing usable for notability there. A couple more sources like that one, and then we're looking at something notable; at the moment, it's part way there. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts were that some of the references go to clearly establishing that Sienna Skies has undertaken "an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." Dan arndt (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that most of the destinations are clearly just bars or minor clubs, and when they're at bigger ones, they're very much in a minor supporting role. Still not convinced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:28, 31 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harvardization[edit]

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

Vague neologism -- all sources cited place it in quotes -- with no consistent meaning across sources. Seems to mean, variously: adoption of educational techniques, perceived to be Harvard-ish, by other schools; purchase of real estate in surrounding communities by Harvard; yuppification; and Harvard athletes learning to balance practice and academics. EEng (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (as nominator) -- for reasons given above. EEng (talk) 15:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Harvard University. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. This attempts at a (WP:NOT) dictionary definition approach, falling short even of that. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 24 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 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. If the article has long term promo issue, that is dealt with in different ways than deletion here. KTC (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reekus Records[edit]

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

Advertising with an additional concern of WP:COI and sock/meatpuppets. The Banner talk 13:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix promotional aspects of article on notable label. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agree with Candleabracadabra; fix promo aspects. Article needs cleanup, but notability is clear. AuthorAuthor (talk) 12:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tried to clean it up but the promo was returned everytime... The Banner talk 13:32, 27 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 15:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Process scorecard[edit]

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

This is a concept created in a doctoral thesis. I can find no references to the concept outside of WP mirrors and primary sources by the concept's creator, Guillermo Granados; none of the third party hits for the phrase "process scorecard" refer to Granados' concept. The article contains no independent references to establish notability. Suggest deletion per WP:NOT#OR. Muchness (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete largely per nominator, I can't find sources which aren't related to Guillermo Granados, and a limited range of sources which are related to Granados. Delete per WP:NOT#OR and the WP:GNG. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:25, 30 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 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 This AfD has been open for more than 7 days. Six editors participated. Three editors registered as Keep. No one besides the nominator suggested Delete. The only debate was in regard to where sources should be placed or how they should be shown to exist. I am therefore making a non-Admin closure. — Keithbob • Talk • 02:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Walk (band)[edit]

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

This band does not appear to meet notability guidelines WP:BAND or WP:GNG. The included articles mention the band but do not cover the band. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about the articles about the band that I mentioned when I deproded it? --Michig (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to mention the existence of other sources about the band — you have to actually add them to the article as actual references for them to count. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A subject is considered notable if the sources exist, not only if someone adds them to the article. Nominators are expected to follow WP:BEFORE. --Michig (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can claim that other sources exist even if they actually don't. (This happens quite frequently, for the record.) We can't verify whether such sources actually exist if they're not actually added somewhere. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could Google it and probably find the ones I found. Thus they could verify that the sources exist. --Michig (talk) 19:43, 29 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article is not particularly well-sourced at this time, I'll admit, but it isn't entirely unsourced and it does make sufficient claim of notability to be keepable with further sourcing improvements. Weak keep, but only if Michig actually adds some of the Hamilton Spectator sourcing that was mentioned in the deprod edit summary. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's sufficient coverage to meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BAND #1 per Paul Erik.Argolin (talk) 05:12, 28 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to RNA world hypothesis. There appears to be a consensus that this may be a notable subject, but not yet, and this article doesn't supply the proof. Therefore, it can be spun out again if this changes. Black Kite (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peptide-RNA world[edit]

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

It is premature to have a page on one group's 3-month-old paper, where the only non-primary source that directly refers to the subject is that group's own press release. This theory is not yet notable. Agricolae (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 05:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found several sources illustrating that, while the study based on which I wrote the article is new, the idea of a Peptide-RNA world has existed for some time: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-16977-9_10#page-1 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11002892. Hence, while the article may need to be rewritten for more neutral and wider coverage of the subject, I do not believe that this is premature. I have also found more secondary coverage of the study itself, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130913185848.htm, though it seems to be mostly a copy of the UCLA press release. If, despite the above, consensus is that this article does not belong on Wikipedia, I propose moving it to Wikinews or my userspace as alternatives to deletion. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It certainly seems self-promotional to immediately self-rank one's article as high importance for a relevant WikiProject. If you had waited until the ink dried or someone else on the project happened along, I would be more in the corner of "keep". This could certainly be newsworthy and someone might actually want to look this up and read the article. This is notable in my opinion, but the issues remain for lack of secondary sources and neutrality. Fylbecatulous talk 12:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I agree that the ranking was undeserved. I made it per the rating on "RNA World" which I interpreted as being a convention ("all origin of life theories are high importance". Looking at some of the other related articles, no such convention exists. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's never a good idea to rate an article you have contributed significantly to; convention or not it should be left for someone else to do. Agricolae (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Too new to have accumulated reliable secondary sources attesting to its significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found the following: http://cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/4/7/a006742.full as support for the RNA world. I have added some of its arguments to the article, to provide a more NPOV perspective on the theory. This, along with the articles I mentioned above shows that protein-based alternatives to the RNA world are not news, and have been debated for some time. Another possible idea would be to create a broader article "Proteins in the RNA world" which would cover this and other historical ideas, both those that seek to replace the RNA world with protein molecules and those that seek to add proteins to the RNA world. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All theories are not created equal and just because when discussing an RNA world people have mentioned alternatives does not mean that those alternatives are inherently notable enough to merit a page of their own. There have been numerous papers on the RNA world, including specifically on the relevance of ribozymes and nucleotide cofactors to such a possible biochemical origin. There have been several decades-worth of reviews of it, which include the arguments positive and negative. If the alternatives are never discussed on their own in the secondary literature, but only presented as a counterpoint in writings about the RNA world, then the RNA world article needs a well-written section on alternatives rather than creating independent content fork pages for each alternative that has been suggested. The Tom Cech review you point to above is a perfect example - it only mentions the RNA-protein alternative once and then only to say that an RNA world is more parsimonious than one also involving proteins, and then he says nothing more about this alternative. That he paraded this out as a straw man and then ignored it is hardly legitimate support for the notability of the RNA-protein world alternative. Show me a review specifically on this so-called RNA-protein world (which as you say is nothing new as an alternative to the RNA world) and that would be a stronger argument about having such an article, but not one that focuses on recent speculation by one group that no secondary source has noticed. Agricolae (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in RNA world hypothesis. It deserves a mention there, it doesn't need a promotional article all devoted to a single (even if intriguing) study. --cyclopia ^speak! 14:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the following: The article as it currently is is stored in my userspace until secondary reliable coverage could be found showing that the study has received scientific attention. The page itself is merged into the "Alternative Hypothesis" section of RNA world with the following text:

"A recent version of this is the Peptide-RNA world hypothesis, which claims that RNA co-evolved with early enzymes ("urzymes"), which are supposed to catalyze the self-replication of RNA. These "urzymes" were found by extrapolating common features of extant enzyme groups, and shown to be catalysts in the lab. They themselves may have developed from even simpler peptides. While this theory requires the simultaneous development of two complex molecules, it could help explain why, once the molecules did form, they rapidly evolved a high fidelity (i.e. reliability of replication)." --HighFlyingFish (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have two concerns with this 'solution'. First, it gives way too much play in the RNA world article to what is just the latest in a long string of speculation about alternatives. As suggested above, NOTNEWS applies and we should not be giving so much attention to an article nobody in the scientific community has noticed enough to incorporate into a synthesis of the topic, a review. This WEIGHT issue applies just as much to this material being given detailed coverage in the RNA world article as it does in its own. The second concern is related. If we are to have an article on the alternatives to the RNA world, it should not look like the current article does, focusing entirely on this very recent result. People have been speculating for 30 years about alternatives to the RNA world, and some of those other variants have appeared in reviews. We shouldn't be saving this current iteration with its disproportionate coverage on one group's recent paper and the associated press release. If we are to have an article on alternatives, now or in the future, it should be a survey of the alternatives and not simply, 'here is an interesting recent paper with unique speculation'. Agricolae (talk) 04:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the current https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis#Alternative_hypotheses section basically "an article on the alternatives to the RNA world, [that does] not look like the current article does, focusing entirely on this very recent result"? What I have written as a suggested addition to that section gives a brief description of the ideas of this study, which would be given the same level of weight as the PNA-world, TNA-world and Panspermia are given in that section, but given less weight overall since it would lack its own overview article, while the other concepts (which are older and more widely reviewed) have their own pages. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our goal is to give an overview of the topic as it is viewed by the scientific community, not to give a blow by blow of each article as it comes out. Will this be viewed as offering critical insight, as just another paper, or plain wrong? Until/unless somebody in the scientific community notices this paper, we as editors can't tell. Is it a particularly noteworthy contribution to the subject or just a pet theory of a limited group of researchers? Only time will tell. Until then, it should be given far less weight than a broad concept such as panspermia that has been discussed in detail for decades in everything from the scientific literature to the popular press. Agricolae (talk) 06:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Agricolae. A one/two-brief-sentence mention is good, but anything more would violate WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. --cyclopia ^speak! 10:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. From looking at WP:UNDUE, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views", wouldn't that policy actually support having this as an independent article?

Though this article, as it is currently, fails several other guidelines, such as "pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained", however, wouldn't that be more ground for editing, rather than deletion? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE would support inclusion of the alternative to an RNA world within that article, but not inclusion of one specific research group's personal spin on the alternative to the RNA world. It could be argued that an article on the broader topic of a protein-RNA alternative would be justified, but as explained above, it is not a foregone conclusion that this is notable, as it seems primarily discussed in the context of the RNA world as an alternative, and not on its own. That being said, one specific research group's personal spin on the alternative to the RNA world, one that nobody else has taken notice of, certainly does not merit such a page - when you create a different page just so you can have a place to put an alternative pet theory that policy prevents from placing on an existing page, that is called a WP:CONTENTFORK. For this group's theory to merit a page of its own it not only has to be different than the majority theory, it has to have received significant independent coverage (WP:GNG), and we have no such coverage. That makes it non-notable and not meriting a page of its own. That it is just one quirky flavor of the alternative scenario means it doesn't merit significant coverage on the RNA world page either. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That said, "A recent version of this is the Peptide-RNA world hypothesis, which claims that RNA co-developed with early enzymes ("urzymes"), which are supposed to catalyze the self-replication of RNA." is probably sufficient coverage of this theory within the RNA world article itself, if I understand the policy correctly. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing recent about the hypothesis of a Peptide-RNA world. I just don't get why this one study (not the longstanding underlying concept of a Peptide-RNA alternative to the RNA world, but this specific study) must be given disproportionate attention when the broader community has yet to notice it. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. New suggestion: "Another proposal is that the dual molecule system we see today, where a nucleotide-based molecule is needed to synthesize protein, and a protein-based molecule is needed to make nucleic acid polymers, represents the original form of life. Such a "Peptide-RNA world" has the advantage of providing proteins as catalysts for the complex process of RNA self-replication, which might otherwise be unlikely to develop and slow to evolve a high fidelity. Its primary weakness is that is it would require the independent formation of two complex molecules, which would then have to be compatible to form a living system."

This study and some of the other secondary sources that I found and included for this article are included solely as references, and Peptide-RNA world is made into a redirect to the "Alternative Hypotheses" section of RNA world. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 04:21, 21 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request: I intend to rewrite this article so that it gives less weight to this study and more to the concept as a whole. Please wait at least until October 24th to delete it. Thank You. Sorry. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made changes to address some of the valid concerns raised here. Does the current article give a more neutral overview of the topic? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At a first look seems to me it could be a synthesis of stuff to create the impression there is a notable concept where there is none. --cyclopia ^speak! 08:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand, given that SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition and SYNTH is not summary. Could you please elaborate? --HighFlyingFish (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is back to the same old issue (well, one of them, at least). Is the RNA-protein world notable in and of itself, or is it primarily mentioned only as a counterpoint to the RNA world? If the former, then there should be stand-alone reviews that talk about the primordial RNA-protein dual-system world. If you have to cobble it together from primary literature and commentary about the RNA world that only give fleeting mention to the RPW (such as the Tom Cech review), then that is not really independent notability, and it should be covered I the RNA world article alone. Agricolae (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

from Wikipedia:Notability #General notability guideline ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a passing mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."--HighFlyingFish (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here I would have bolded the first of the two sentences, the part about "directly and in detail", and about "no original research being needed", and I would have continued with the part farther down the page that says "Sources should be secondary sources". The article as it stands has 9 references (although 4 & 7 are identical). Of these: 1 is a non-independent press release, and 3 derives directly from that press release; 2 & 5 are primary (the first has been cited zero times, the second once even though it is a decade old, so neither have attracted the kind of notice that would make them impactful); 4/7 is a freshman-level textbook, which is not going to give more than passing reference to any theory of molecular origins; 6 is a book chapter that will take me a week to track down; 8 is just being used to back up criticism of the RNA world, so it does not contribute to the notability of the RPW, and 9 can barely even be called a passing reference. So, at best you have one secondary source, and that is not significant coverage of a scientific hypothesis. Agricolae (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now gotten hold of ref 6, and while it discusses a peptide/RNA world, it speaks of it in succession to the RNA world, not as used here, as an alternative to it. Since this was the only possible secondary source that might have given significant coverage to this alternative to the RNA world we are now left with none. Agricolae (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy and wait per WP:NOTNEWS. -- 101.119.14.213 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a noteworthy idea. Wincent77 (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a noteworthy idea (eye of the beholder), but it certainly doesn't look like a NOTABLE one. Agricolae (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, can be restored if more independent sources have been found.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bjarni Gautur[edit]

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

Delete per WP:BIO. Result of checking notability is Failed. Vanquisher.UA^(talk) 19:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret. I found in non-reliable sources that he also goes by Bjarni Thomas, I found cartoons he drew as a child on the children's pages of the main national newspaper of Iceland, Morgunblaðið, and I found he helped out an actor friend by suggesting and helping his make a showreel of his work. But I didn't find any extended coverage in reliable sources of him or his work. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 15 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also cannot find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:32, 24 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.