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 Rocko's Modern Life characters#Bev Bighead. I've gone ahead and added in one paragraph from the article to the List of characters. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 01:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bev Bighead[edit]

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

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

This was at AfD but then withdrawn for no reason. The character is still not notable. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to List of Rocko's Modern Life characters#Bev Bighead. Not notable, but already discussed in the list of characters. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Rocko's Modern Life characters#Bev Bighead. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 15 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go-Slow Lagos[edit]

Go-Slow Lagos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is about an unnoteworthy topic, poorly formatted, unencyclopedic, and provides little to no information of value. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No decent content there; if someone does want to write on the topic, they can easily begin by including it at Traffic congestion#By_country or Lagos, Nigeria#Transportation. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poorly sourced. And even if traffic congestion is particularly notable in Lagos, Nigeria to the extent that it warrants its own article -- and there's no reason given that it is from the lack of information provide -- the article seems to be mostly about a term for the traffic congestion, not the traffic congestion itself. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judo Filipinas[edit]

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

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

Non-notable group - no references beyond its webpage. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is inconceivable that a 21st century national sporting organisation (or governing body as it was described before I pointed out that it nothing of the sort) in a country with English as an official language could be notable without independent references being findable by Google searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not mean any of the specific criteria for notability of a sports league or organization under WP:SPORTCRIT or the general notability guidelines.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:V. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think it also fails the relevant project's guidelines at Wikipedia:MMANOT#Organizations. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - none of the links found on Google are useable; fails WP:GNG and WP:V. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 13:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources and nothing that shows this just created organization is notable. Papaursa (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It may become notable in the future, but for now, it's too soon, as there isn't much coverage for the organization just yet. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:39, 14 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nadja Gontermann[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a non-notable radio broadcaster. Has worked on three apparently non-notable radio stations, no evidence of meeting WP:GNG in the article or a Google search. Orphaned since November 2006; can't find a suitable place to wikilink her to at present either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Couldn't find any evidence that she meets notability guideline(s). --Boson (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Boson. The article doesn't provide any suitable references, the Google-books reference I saw noted that the book is based primarily on Wikipedia, and there's little else.--Larry (talk) 20:34, 7 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Public Real Estate Association[edit]

European Public Real Estate Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not appear to be a notable organization. Most of the sources in the article simply mention that it exists, not that it does anything of note (other than be related to another article of questionable substance). —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources not in the article, but readily available from the news, book and scholar searches linked above? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of it really seems to show anything other than it exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I commend you for your speed-reading ability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this nomination seems to be on the basis that there are limited on-line resources and seems to completely ignore the off-line sources which a Google search above says exist. Technical 13 (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. See [1] for example. And EPRA index should be merged into this article. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:52, 7 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 no consensus. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Girl Project![edit]

Nice Girl Project! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It is completely unclear what this article is about. A musical group? A dance troupe? A comedy team? Notability not met. Other issues as well, for example, the inclusion of Japanese text. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Never heard of this, but reading up on it, it seems this is kind of a sister project to Tsunku's Hello! Project, which means it is not a specific band or group, but a project to foster and develop idol entertainers. It seems the difference from Hello! Project is that this involves the cooperation of four talent agencies with different strengths, enabling the development of multi-talented idols or idols of different talents. That is what at least the news articles say, and since Tsunku's activities are the focus of much attention, there have been quite a number of articles on it: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], etc. Although some of the groups in the project have been notable (e.g., The Possible (group)), the project itself is not a band or a group and cannot be judged using WP:BAND. I believe we just have to return to WP:GNG. I think there is enough coverage to just pass GNG. Michitaro (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 7 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Resources[edit]

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

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

The company is likely to be notable but the present article and all older versions have severe neutrality issues. Better to use WP:TNT and start all over again. The Banner talk 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep -- if you think the article is biased, fix the article. bogdan (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is biased from the first to the last version. Your edits did not make any bit less biased, you just swung the bias in another way. This article is just beyond rescue. The Banner talk 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the current article is beyond rescue, why would blowing it up and starting again produce a less biased article? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Exactly what severe neutral point of view violations are in play here? I've read the article and I do not see anything that would warrant article deletion as a solution. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first version was a copy/paste from some presentation materials of the company, but I believe it could be improved.Acornboy (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - most of this article, as well as all independent sources, deal with the mining project of Roșia Montană, which is the subject of another article, Roșia Montană Project.- Andrei (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Roșia Montană Project, merging as necessary - given Andrei Stroe's comment, this seems to be a logical outcome. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:04, 16 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotting (climbing)[edit]

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

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

This article, along with the one on Spotting (weight training), is basically an unreferenced extended dictionary definition, and not a subject with enough material for an independent encyclopedia article. KDS4444^Talk 21:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it may be a bit too much of a how-to guide and in need of improvement but the topic is a valid one for an encyclopedia. References could easily be added. The article is not currently a dictionary definition as it is clearly about the technique of spotting and not the word 'spotting' in this context. JMiall₰ 22:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as "spotting" is a physical activity in which one person "does" the activity and another person "spots" them to make sure they don't fall or hurt themselves, do you think it would be a good idea to merge the two articles mentioned here (neither of which has any references) along with a redirect from other potential "spotting" articles such as "Spotting (gymnastics)", etc.? Each context is different, but they all derive from the same fundamental concept and it doesn't seem useful to have several articles on the same spotting idea. And I would still like to see a reference or two for any of it. I am very familiar with the concept of spotting with regard to weight training, but am concerned it is like "walking" or "catching" or "yelling" or "hefting" or "sneezing" or "typing" or "snoozing" in that these are just basic human "things" that don't seem to rise to the level of an encyclopedia. But I am totally open to being convinced otherwise! Thoughts?? KDS4444^Talk 18:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a dictionary definition, as opposed to the separate encyclopedia articles that we have now. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common idea between the 2 articles is that people 'spotting' are trying to spot something potentially dangerous but the situation they do this in and the the action they then take are quite different, different enough in my opinion to justify to separate articles. If you think the articles should be merged then this isn't really the place to discuss it though. Some of the xxxx-ing articles that you mention do have wikipedia articles, although not necessarily under exactly the same title. I'm tempted to start writing an article on catching - a very encyclopaedic topic that we don't seem to have a good article on. JMiall₰ 12:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we have articles about catching in particular contexts. For example Catch (baseball) and Caught have very similar contexts, but that small difference is enough to make it valid for us to have separate articles. I would very much welcome the supplementation of such articles by a general article on catching, about there must be loads of potential encyclopedic content, such as the physiological and neurological processes that lead humans to be able to perform such a complex act of coordination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are articles on spotting in the context of bouldering at Rock and Ice magazine, the Bouldering Book (a blog by a recognized authority), ABC of rock climbing, and Stonemonkey (not sure if this is reliable, but it looks like reasonable info). A search on Google books shows many books that discuss spotting: Bouldering with Bobbi Bensman, Better Bouldering, Girl on the Rocks, etc.. There look to be multiple in-depth reliable sources for this topic, making it notable. The article definitely needs sources and a bit less of a howto style, but these are surmountable editing problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per my comments above. It seems that this keeps getting relisted because of the low number of bolded opinions, rather than on the basis of the discussion that has a clear policy-based consensus to keep, so there's my bolded opinion. Given the number of such relistings I think we should have a discussion about deprecating WP:NOTAVOTE, because it clearly isn't being followed. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Added one reference [13]. Article can be improved, but this is definitely a notable topic. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:11, 7 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swangin[edit]

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

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

Redirect compromise reverted by article author. Fails WP:NSONGS due to failure to chart and insignificant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 14:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. In my view there's just enough coverage - [14][15][16][17][18][19] - to support an article per WP:NSONGS.  Gong show 19:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article needs to explained with content from those sources then to establish the notability, since there is no chart performance to establish any. STATic message me! 20:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some info from the sources to the article.  Gong show 22:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Stalley. Not quite notable yet. Koala15 (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Gongshow's additions. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:19, 7 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. AfC draft already in existence can continue to be improve, and eventually moved over this title if/once it is accepted after review. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 12:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LogosQuiz[edit]

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

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

Copied from an early version of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/LogosQuiz which is still under review at AFC. The version at AFC is not ready for the main encyclopedia either. The topic may or may not be notable but both this version and the more-complete article at AFC are way too promotional in tone for the main encyclopedia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced – and as per YouTube views, I doubt we would count downloads as showing notability. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator I declined the version at AFC, but if it is improved and notability adequately demonstrated, it may be moved into the main article space. If it is not, then it is better to have no article than either this or the now-declined AFC submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:01, 8 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torres (musician)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG. Note that I have nominated her album, TORRES (Album). Watch that AFD, if it closes as "MERGE TO ARTIST" and this closes as "DELETE" there will be a problem. Similar notice placed on that AFD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see at least a few decent sources, including a review from Pitchfork Media. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This musician meets at least 3 of the criteria from WP:MUSIC, several of the general criteria from WP:BIO, and ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on WP:GNG, I.E. the musician has been the subject multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. For examples of these reliable sources, please see the reference list on the page in question. Stomachworm88 (talk) 21:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of sources in the article point to this artist meeting WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 07:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Don't just say "Yes, it's notable, there are sources, it meets WP:MUSBIO", but examine each one in turn, which gives us:

Native Issue 12 didn't load for me successfully. I think a better source is needed

pigeonsandplanes - what makes this a reliable source?

Lasko - a source defined but not used

Pitchfork - actually a YouTube video, self-published

The Deli - okay, local news coverage not a particularly great source to pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSBIO but does count

abubaker - a source defined but not used

In your speakers - what makes this a reliable source?

Listen Before You Buy - this looks self-published and they'll put up just about any band, notable or otherwise

2 x Nashville Scene - okay

songkick.com - what makes this a reliable source?

2 x Pitchfork reviews - okay

Beats Per Minute, Drowned in Sound, Pretty Much Amazing - what makes these reliable sources?

Album of the year - a list of user reviews. Self published source

Adding that lot up, by my standards, gives you coverage in 5 reliable sources. That's just about enough to tip it into notability, particularly since the odds are that more sources will appear in time (but see WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL). Despite what Stomachworm88 claimed above, the article meets none of the "free pass" criteria in WP:MUSBIO, since her album was self-published and has not charted, and her "tours" are not notable enough to be written about in Rolling Stone. On a side note, "Scott decidedly crafted the distinct sound of her debut album" is very much WP:POV, so I've copyedited the article to tone things down a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by nominator: It is my intent to revisit Ritchie333's work above (I did something similar for the album, see Talk:TORRES (Album). Who knows, I may wind up withdrawing this or, if I am not convinced, re-asserting that the person fails WP:Notability. It's obvious already that I didn't do my homework before nominating this, and for that I apologize. Trouts and wet noodles accepted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• according to WP:NMUSIC, a musician must meet at least one of the guidelines listed there in order for her to be considered notable. this musician meets at least two of them, IE #1 and #4. so slim yes, but passing yes. and at least two of the references, pitchfork media and drowned in sound are listed as reliable in WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. we must keep Stomachworm88 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly how does this reach criteria #4? That's (imho) for people like Daryl Stuermer, who, while never appearing as an official member of Genesis and not playing on their albums, achieved notability by being part of the regular touring line-up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• ok maybe this musician does not meet criterion #4, but she still does definitely meet criterion #1, which is the most important criterion. thus this article is not a legitimate candidate for deletion and we must keep. Stomachworm88 (talk) 21:59, 9 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TORRES (Album)[edit]

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

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG criteria. Note - I am also nominating the musician's page (Torres (musician)) so please avoid closing as "merge to artist" unless that page looks like it will survive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article does meet at least 3 of the criteria on WP:MUSIC, the minimum number of criteria needing to be met is at least 1. This article does meet ALL of the criteria from the "general notability guideline" on WP:GNG. This album has received significant coverage from many reliable sources, all of which are independent of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomachworm88 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC) * Keep added by for clarity. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess my issue is the questionable reliability of the sources listed. Could you go to Talk:TORRES (Album) and address 1) why you think each source listed is relaible, and 2) which 3 criteria of WP:MUSIC and which source(s) support each of the 3 criteria, and for each criteria in WP:GNG which source(s) support that criteria? Okay, you don't have to do all of those, technically you just need to convincingly show that one reference is reliable and, using just this reference, show that notability is demonstrated. But I'm hard to convince, and others may be as well. The stronger your case, the more likely I am to be so convinced that I withdraw this nomination. I'm already leaning towards withdrawing the nomination for the artist, I'm holding back because I'm still not convinced the sources listed in the album article that give significant coverage to the artist are reliable, and I haven't had time to re-review the references on the artist's page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• all of the references listed in this album article are registered as "professional critics" on the music aggregator website metacritic, and therefore reliability, credibility, and "mainstream press" are ensured/assumed. for the guidelines... "significant coverage" meaning the sources provide full article reviews, not simply "passing mention." "Reliable" meaning the sources are both published and available. "Sources" meaning...well, notable sources. "Independent of the source" meaning the sources and the subject of the articles are separate entities and there is no conflict of interest happening. So which sources are applicable here? Most of them; as i wrote above, all of the sources are registered with metacritic, and therefore have credibility and meet the "general notability guidelines." so if there is still any question, i suppose it would have to be, "is metacritic a reliable source?" the answer to that, i think, has to be yes. by the way, i do appreciate davidwr helping to clean up the article's reference links and what not; I am still new to creating/editing articles. so thanks! Stomachworm88 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Our standards for using sources is different/separate/not dependant on Metacritic, there are many times that they use websites for their review aggregations that Wikipedia does not consider reliable, so it'd be best to directly describe why you think the sources are reliable rather than just depend on Metacritics approval... Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• metacritic tends to be a good gauge for a source's notability. these sources are reliable because they are published, national, copyrighted, archived, incorporated, not user-generated, reputable reviews. therefore it is probably best for someone to describe why these sources are not reliable rather than have to prove why there are. Stomachworm88 (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There's definitely a history of certain sources in used by Metacritic not being usable by Wikipedia. I'll stop arguing this point though, because regardless, sources found below like Drowned in Sound or Pitchfork Media are in fact reliable sources, so it probably should be kept. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:NMUSIC through coverage in reliable sources. Pitchfork Media [20], Drowned in Sound [21] and No Ripcord [22] all have reviews and are all listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE as recommended sources for album articles. — sparklism ^hey! 07:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a side note: the article should probably be moved to Torres (album) per WP:BANDNAME, which also applies to albums. — sparklism ^hey! 07:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the sources mentioned by Sparklism, and a number of them on the article page from the review box as well. There's enough to pass the WP:GNG. I support Sparklism's article rename as well, it doesn't currently doesn't follow WP:ALLCAPS, but his proposed title would. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources identified by sparklism; subject meets WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 22:59, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E Hardy[edit]

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

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

I'm not finding evidence of notability. The one reference merely lists him as a consultant on a project. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is mentioned as the recipient of prestigious National Award http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n31/story112.html. There are other sources which I have not yet added. User:Jayzburger 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the National Award is, but that isn't what that source says he won. He received a National Science Foundation fellowship. According to NSF-GRF, this is awarded to 2,000 doctoral students every year. I'll be interested to see the other sources, but this award doesn't really set him out from the crowd. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the linked award doesn't really make him notable. Someone who is supposed to be a renowned expert, I would expect to find a list of publications with some impact. However, a superficial google search failed to come up with any publication. Did he actually finish his PhD? What was the title of his dissertation? His profile at linkedin doesn't really support the idea that he meets the notability criteria. And just wondering: how do you know (and what reference can you cite) for the claim that he is also a talented musician, singer, and poet? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, sources will be added. Here is another source describing emerging issues that are highly valuable to the field of civil engineering: http://www.cvcwa.org/sites/default/files/conferences/05-Pelz%20Hardy-Controlling%20Methylmercury.pdf Also, I am currently trying to locate info on his PhD/dissertation. He is a regular performer at the Oak Park Christian Center. Performances can be found online. User:Jayzburger talk 21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you believe that slide presentation conveys that establishes Hardy's notability. I skimmed through it and then ran a search on "hardy". As far as I can tell, it doesn't mention the man once, let alone is it an example of a secondary reliable source giving him significant coverage. Is this a presentation he created? If so, then it seems that you're thinking something to the effect of, "This man is producing research and presenting findings that I find to be important. Therefore, people should take note of him, and he merits an article on Wikipedia." If that's what you had in mind, I need to tell you that that's not how Wikipedia sets forth the criteria for inclusion. Again, there needs to be significant coverage of the person in reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say what you meant by "regular performer", but singing in your own church, for example, doesn't equate to being a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Also, a Google search for mentions of "oak park christian center" accompanied by the words "charles" and "hardy" yields nothing. Wikipedia is interested that he's a talented performer only if secondary reliable sources give significant coverage to his performance and classify him as talented. Even if there's a video of him online, if you're making the judgment yourself as to his talent, that's insufficient. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did produce the report. See link:http://www.cvcwa.org/conference Also, as noted in the notability criteria, secondary sources do not have to be found online. I have contacted the subject directly for sourcing information. He notably performs on a local/regional scale (the sources for which I have inquired directly) User:Jayzburger talk 5:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of actual notability per WP:BIO, reeks of self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sourcing that leads me to believe that the person meets the criteria for WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG and I certainly can't find any myself. If the creator does in fact provide actual reliable sources, I'd be willing to change my opinion (I'm skeptical), but as of now, there's no reason for this to be here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any evidence of academic impact (there's another Charles E Hardy who has been publishing since the 1970s on forest fires but appears not to be the same person), and student fellowships explicitly do not count for WP:PROF. He also does not appear to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not Delete Each editorial response has been given after a very brief skimming of the internet. As found in the notability criterion, the person in the article does not have to be cited online. There are myriad sources attesting to the subjects notability, of which I am currently inquiring directly to the said person. User:Jayzburger talk 5:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)— Jayzburger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sourcing doesn't necessarily have to be online but it actually has to exist. That to find these "myriad sources" requires directly inquiring the subject of the biography for assistance is not an auspicious sign for the subject's notability.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing doesn't necessarily have to be online and it does exist. I have attended several professional seminars taught by this person. It would be easier to go directly to the source, rather than search libraries or scholarly article databases. However, I am looking into other resources as well.Jayzburger (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at a seminar does not count as a reliable source. The sources need to be published, they need to be by someone other than the subject and cover the subject in nontrivial detail (rather than merely being by the subject or mentioning the subject only briefly) and (if offline) they need to be verifiable by other people who can look up that publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources and there are none cited in the article. Happy to have a look at any sources anyone else finds and change my opinion if appropriate. ~KvnG 17:51, 10 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Oubliette[edit]

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

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

Non-notable, of course. Even a list is preferable to a line. Basket _Feudalist 18:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nomination fails WP:JNN, and (although the NYT link in the article does not provide nontrivial detail about the subject) there appears to be nontrivial book coverage e.g. here and here (unfortunately both paywalled), enough to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These old films might not have as much citations as new ones as they probably have been lost to time, but it stars a host of notables and there is some coverage existing. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect This is part of a series of films called The Adventures of François Villon. I created The Adventures of François Villon to contain them. The Higher Law (1914 film) should be redirected there as well. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article meets notability standards for films on it own. The fact that it is a film featuring Lon Chaney doubles that. We have 100s of 1000s of articles that are only a line are two so that is not an automatic qualification for deletion. I am not sure that one article for four films is better than four separate articles. for one thing we will loose the edit histories. I also have a sense that expansion of the articles would be easier if they were separate but I can't back that up with any examples. If enough editors are for merging and redirecting then that would be okay instead. MarnetteD | Talk 00:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep per this 1914 silent film having separate historical notability under WP:NF no matter what film collections of which it might have later been a part. IE: "film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." If it somehow remains a stub, that is perfectly okay. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:18, 12 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

United Church of YHWH[edit]

United Church of YHWH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems mainly known for dropping is use of Nazi symbols, a one-off event. It seems to have more or less vanished with the exception of a forum[24]. I did find references to its downfall, splits, etc on various forums, but no evidence of notability except for the Nazi issue. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its merely being listed as a hate group appears to be the only thing mentioned about them, apart from the news about disuse of Nazi symbols. So there are some mere inclusions in lists of hate groups, and a single news story. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yep, one news story is not enough to establish notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't even verify that it still exists. Only a single news story about this group was spread around by the media in 2007; it was syndicated widely. That was it. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearian. -- 101.119.15.70 (talk) 13:41, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pneuron[edit]

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

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

Company does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP through signficant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The best source is this Forbes article. Other sourcing in the article is problematic with funding announcements (routine business news), or non-reliable sources. An analysis of the sources was imbedded in the article (which I removed as non article content) and is visible in this version. Whpq (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Delete per nom and per CSD G11. WP:CORPDEPTH says that neither coverage in "media of limited interest and circulation", nor coverage in local media, are enough. Salt to prevent the article from being created for yet a third time. If the article is deleted and someone wants to recreate it, they should contact the closing admin and present additional impressive sources: perhaps significant coverage in The New York Times or the print version of BusinessWeek. But I doubt that any such sources exist. Cheers, ——Unforgettableid (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, "independent" coverage is all promotional in nature. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I suppose. Gosh, this article has somehow worked its way into my top 10 most edited articles. My patience with helping drive-by, single-item-of-interest editors make something of this has been exhausted. I'll agree that the Forbes article seems to be the best source. Note that two articles link here. Business-oriented architecture is a buzzword-filled orphan that was linked from the May version of this article, which also seems promotional. PricewaterhouseCoopers has a mention based on the Forbes article, in the history section:

  In 2013, the company partnered with data integration firm Pneuron Corporation to help firms manage big data.

Should this sentence be removed, as "undue weight" for the last 15 years of PwC history? Who knows how many other firms they've "partnered with" in the last 15 years? I'll need to get to work on something else to avoid staining my top ten with a red link ;-) Wbm1058 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the reasons mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:08, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kashk (disambiguation)[edit]

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

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

There's nothing at Abd al-Hamid Kishk that indicates that anyone would be looking for it via "Kashk", so I would remove that link—and then there would no longer be any disambiguation. Nothing links here; I rerouted one link that was pointing here (in the hatnote on Kashk) to Kashk, Iran. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely superfluous after Largo Plazo's sensible changes. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kashk, Iran should be merged to Kashk (disambiguation). Boleyn (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Change of mind: Keep. Kashk, Iran is really the outlier, which I had left alone because it was the older page, but Boleyn has convinced me to move in the other direction, and merge Kashk, Iran into Kashk (disambiguation), as he has done. Still, I got rid of the Kishk guy. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Now merged, and I think it's clear this is now a valid dab. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 21:08, 8 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Social Justice in Utah[edit]

Social Justice in Utah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not appear to match the title and is more of an essay than encyclopedic. PROD placed but removed by author without modification. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Loriendrew has pretty much summed it up. The article looks more like a school assignment, covering various topics about Utah. This is not an encyclopedia article.--Larry (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 17:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An unsourced off topic essay. Someone should probably drop a friendly message to Kailee801, author of this good faith effort, and go over some basic policies. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Although it cites a number of reliable sources, it is sadly non-neutral and is structured like an essay - hence a blatant violation of WP:NOTESSAY. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I was going to suggest a userfication of this article and hoping that User:Kailee801 could be given the chance to clean this article up and find something to salvage. The problem is that almost everything in this piece is already found in better detail in other existing articles on Wikipedia with the possible exception of the content on homosexuality, and even that is somewhat covered under LGBT rights in Utah. Not perfectly, and a Homosexuality in Utah would be an interesting article, but I don't think this would even make a good stub for an article like that. I agree that a friendly note thanking the good faith effort of this user at least trying to do something useful for Wikipedia is warranted, but this article does need to be deleted in its current state. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a horribly POV-pushing article. To beging with, when did Serbians and Greeks become "non-white". This is clearly not how the US census bureau has ever sued the term, Iranians, Yemenses and Egyptians are white to the Census Bureaua. Census figures are the only workable ones we have on percentages of whites, so things are more complex than can be seen from this article. Also, the over-focus on Salt Lake City in an article supposedly about Utah just does not work. Anyway, the title itself is not really neutral.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unsourced original essay (a.k.a. "Original Research"). Carrite (talk) 17:12, 12 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone recording laws[edit]

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

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

This article is useless or harmful, I suggest it be deleted or heavily reduced

Even though the introduction states it is about rules on participants recording their own calls (which is contradictory to the title) the article is a mess of wire-tap and private persons' call recording rules, casually mixed toghether. A few sections are good, such as for example Latvia, Denmark, which say that people can record their phone calls. Others are misleading and misplaced, such as section on India, dealing with wire-tap rules. Some also discuss illegal phone intercepts. Germany is a mess with contradictory statements in the introduction (why have Germany in introduction at all, it she mother of "Telephone recording laws"?) and country's section.

It would be useful to have possibility of learning what are the relevant rules accross the World, however, those things are completely different from the rules on wire tap and somewhat different from business phone tape rules. The article as it is now shows intention to emphasize this difference, but achieves the opposite. Those two - criminal and civil rules - should not be put togeher in one story, much less in a senseless mix. Bete (talk) 08:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Poor quality in an article is no reason to delete, poor quality is a reason to warn and improve. 173.48.112.24 (talk) 10:26, 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 14:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:HURT and WP:USELESS are not reasons for deletion. Though the article is in a bad shape, it can be fixed by regular editing. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can't see any immediate harm from this article. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 16:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (rap) @ 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unless there's a better article to merge this into. The subject is notable. Everything the nom lists is reason to improve the article, not to delete it. Owen× ☎ 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly a notable topic and already meets WP:GNG. Sure it needs much editing but AfD is not a clean up forum. The way forward is to improve not delete. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable and fixable per Whispering and Owen. This is not so bad it needs to be blown up. It certainly could use some major editing, but I don't see any actual legal malpractice in the article. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 8 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. While there are opposing views to keep or merge, I feel there is more than sufficient weight to close this as "keep", with a recommendation to discuss a potential merge on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spira (Final Fantasy)[edit]

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

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

not notable, mostly made up of primary sources. Lucia Black (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We have multiple sources that cover the development and creation of the world and it is the perfect place to expand on the very unique Al Bhed language which has a unique Japanese to English conversion system that was referenced in many gaming publications of the era. The details about the worlds inhabitants and places are supposed to be covered here, but the concepts of the Sin, Yu Yevon and other parts of the development that is not covered on the Final Fantasy X (Featured Article) page. Taking a few points from the world's development on the main page and expanding with the other relevant material will make this better. The deletion criteria here is simply a matter of not going by WP:BEFORE and Final Fantasy X Ultimania Ω is just fine as a primary source about the development. What better source is there for the development of the game than a book published by the company about the production and design of the game? Many of the interviews and other sources were in print media and not online. It was also twelve years ago that it was released and despite a second game has just been lacking some proper development. Failing that, I could perform a rush job and try and argue WP:HEY if people disagree. This is an important article and it should be kept; deletion is not clean up. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• anyone else? i can't reply to the person above me as per interaction ban. but this doesn't deny that this is primarily by first-party sources (interviews, guidebooks, etc) and none of the third party sources/opinions. unlike Ivalice.Lucia Black (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. When you're interaction banned, you are interaction banned; saying "I can't reply to them because I'm interaction banned..." is WP:WIKILAWYERING. 2. Then "replying to them without replying to them" anyway is gaming the system. Don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the appropriate pages as necessary. Sorry Chris, but the article simply isn't notable. Having development history is not the same as having good reception. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there's a well-written article that could be written on this topic. I seem to recall that the game's setting received a fair bit of praise when it was first released and there's probably a fair bit more incoming as the HD version releases in the coming months. I'm confident that a good reception section can be added, it just isn't there yet. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do not doubt that it's possible, I would like to see a "show of good faith" that reception exists y'know? I see a lot of situations where people say "this could have a good reception", saving the article; this is typically followed by a long stagnation and eventual relisting. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:21, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with New Age Hippie, we can't use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST or save the article for the possibility of notability without expansion. If we're going to keep this article, it has to prove notability now. Especially considering the past 2 games already released.Lucia Black (talk) 21:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, the above "keep" comment doesn't have any weight unless significant secondary sources are actually brought to the table.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've found numerous secondary sources about the world and context of FFX including heavy coverage of Spira in Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X in Mechademia Volume 4, 2009 and the usage of Al Bhed in Language policy in the making: an analysis of bilingual gaming activities by Sirpa Leppänen and Arja Piirainen-Marsh that is behind a Springer link.[25] More exists on the religious theme in Electronic Game Research Methodologies: Studying Religious Implications by Bainbridge and Bainbridge in Review of Religious Research Vol. 49, No. 1. (JSTOR).[26] These are only English sources, and many more exist in Japanese which shows secondary and academic sources related to the fictional world of Spira. Now, I need to dig up my texts on the creation of the Al Bhed language and some other aspects, but for a fictional world there is enough reliable sources on its creation, its vision and its execution to warrant inclusion. While some of the details definately need to be worked for Wikipedia's usage, I think I've gotten a good set of additions already done and I'm missing the best Japanese sources simply because I can't translate it well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That you got hits with the word "spira" in a search engine doesn't mean WP:GNG is met. It requires "significant coverage", not just mere mentions. From what I've seen of the content you added, I doubt you can build a notable article out of these.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Major Revision: Virtually the only references used are quotes, and most of the text is unreferenced and written in a rather in-universe style. On top of that, Spira just isn't notable enough to warrant this kind of article without some major condensation. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fancruft that belongs on a Final Fantasy Wikia project, not in an actual online encyclopedia. Interviews with devs discussing game content does not confer notability to the in-world universe itself. Tarc (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete, the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, as there is no significant content from multiple secondary independent sources. The bulk of sources is made of primary and affiliated sources (the game and Squenix companion media), the others (recently added) are at best inconsequential (a mere mention of the word "Spira" and that's it) or purely off topic. One is even unreliable (a self-published fansite).Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Undecided still. On one hand, it looks like a merge candidate, considering much of the info is redundant to the parent articles. On the other hand, some of the precedents , while I find them baffling, are in favor of keeping it. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pok%C3%A9mon_regions - for example.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Pokemon region could be AfD again at a later time with more outside perspective.Lucia Black (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, but so could just about any article. I'm just saying that's the standing consensus at the moment. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out. Totes nominated it for deletion. At least this article came as a natural attempt to write an article about a subject; the regions page is simply a repository for articles that weren't strong enough by themselves. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seeing as it's being worked on, I'll wait a bit. This article is comparable to Ivalice. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Wikipedia is no stranger to articles on significant in-universe fictional concepts; what makes this one significantly different to the rest? If it's the sourcing issues, they can gradually be fixed once someone is bold enough to do so. The way I see it is, currently this article does have its problems, but it is salvagable. --benlisquare_T•C•E 01:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be willing to help out w/ the article on the condition that if we cannot find a significant enough number of resources to make the article notable, we will merge the content to relevant articles. Would that sound fine, Lucia? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• If you can make it notable, great. But secondary sources and development info aren't going to salvage it. That type of info can easily make its way into Final Fantasy X article. But these type of deals usually end in long periods of searching, then neglect.Lucia Black (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in favour of the article's merge; do you really think I would allow it to get away with stagnation if the conditions are not met? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 06:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I agree with this if others agree as well.Lucia Black (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is now valuable content in the article, but it is blatantly off-topic as it is about FFX and not Spira itself. I don't see this article getting deleted, but we can set out to merge it into Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 as soon as the AfD closes.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I agree with the merge. I doubt online sources for this game about the world can easily be found, and book sources are very hard to come by. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With over 20 secondary sources having been added I think this meets N/GNG. I've seen pieces of Final Fantasy X World Guide: Yevon's Dogma and People on the Spira and can confirm that the book is not from Square Enix and is not walkthrough or game guide in any capacity, it says so right on the second page. Final Fantasy X Final Strategy is part game guide with a section on the "Analysis of Spira" in its pages and it is also independent of Square Enix. This combined with Washburn's analysis and Hagan and others all show the world is not only studied, but important for reasons completely independent of actually playing the game. Many more sources exist, there are at least 3 more on Al Bhed's cipher/language creation, at least 4 more interviews and about a dozen academic publications in Japanese, and plenty of coverage in old magazines. This page is not a merge candidate either because the setting is best appreciated on its own page and not cluttering up two featured articles. I got more work to do on this, but I think its already notable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:41, 22 September 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 14:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• need to trim and cleanup a little bit and move any unnecessary information to corresponding article on Wikia. SYSS Mouse (talk) 15:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sourcing in the Concept/Creation section and Analysis section are more than sufficient to elevate this past the GNG, but the middle section, all pulling from the primary source, is a bit excessive. That can be trimmed, but there's no reason to otherwise delete. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a note: I realize many of the early sources are first-party (interviews and materials from Square dev as published by Square) but in such cases, they are on-edge secondary sources since they are transforming information - the ideas they used in designing the game's world. But there are also true secondary sources down in the Analysis, so together, I feel that is sufficient. --MASEM (t) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although i disagree that this info is "second" party sources due to them being "transforming" but i do believe now that there is at least "efficient" to keep.Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with that comment. The sections Masem mentions indeed provide notable content, but said content is only about the games themselves, and not "Spira" per say. Even if Spira is the world in which the entire game is set, it's a stretch to say that any discussion related to the game can be used to build an article about "Spira". Don't forget that WP:GNG states that sources "must cover the subject directly". See this glaring example: «In Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X, Washburn writes that Final Fantasy X "makes the relationship of memory, history, and the struggle for control of knowledge a central element of both its gameplay and its narrative."» Is this sentence about Spira ? No, it's about Final Fantasy X. Conclusion, Spira is not notable, but the current content is certainly valuable and deserves to be merged where it belongs, at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, which are currently deprived of it. I thus invite Masem to update their !vote.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, there is no such thing as "second" party sources. They are either first-party (directly by those involved with the game) or third-party (anyone else). Sources are also determined by being primary (directly talking about the work in detail without any transformation), secondary (talking about the work and making transformative claims like critique or analysis), or tertiary (summarizing the work at a higher level). We require secondary sources to assure that others have explored the concept beyond just reiterating what's obvious in the game, and third-party to show that others besides those involved had interest in it. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you know what a 3rd party source is. "Critique" falls in 3rd party.19:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several different means to assess a source: whether it is independent or dependent, whether it is primary, secondary, or tertiary, and whether it is a first-party or third-party source. Those are all separate measurements. A critique, by definition, is secondary, but it could be first-party (a development giving his own critique on work he did well in the past) or third-party (a game reviewer discussing the world). --MASEM (t) 14:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

then it may have to be cleaned up a bit to remove anything specific to the games, and if the info is greatly reduced, then we merge it. too much in-universe information too.Lucia Black (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Denying the sourcing is an invincible ignorance fallacy, where assertions are made with no consideration of objections for the evidence raised. The fact that multiple reliable and independent sources discuss the game world (Spira) and its mechanics, history, lore and religion are evidence enough for notability. An entire book is dedicated to discussing the world that is not in any aspect a "Game Guide" by itself says a lot about it meeting notability. In whole the number and details covered in third party sources surpass Ivalice, which is a GA. The subject has multiple independent articles covering it and more likely to come in the future; especially since a large portion of the world is being redone and improved for the re-release. And one last thing, this is a case where a split is bad thing because would unbalance two FAs and are intrinsically related, the contents are best appreciated in this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  note: I won't waste my time writing a new comment when the previous one has obviously not been read The sections Masem mentions indeed provide notable content, but said content is only about the games themselves, and not "Spira" per say. Even if Spira is the world in which the entire game is set, it's a stretch to say that any discussion related to the game can be used to build an article about "Spira". Don't forget that WP:GNG states that sources "must cover the subject directly". See this glaring example: «In Imagined History, Fading Memory: Mastering Narrative in Final Fantasy X, Washburn writes that Final Fantasy X "makes the relationship of memory, history, and the struggle for control of knowledge a central element of both its gameplay and its narrative."» Is this sentence about Spira ? No, it's about Final Fantasy X. Conclusion, Spira is not notable, but the current content is certainly valuable and deserves to be merged where it belongs, at Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2, which are currently deprived of it. Additional note: FA articles can still be edited and improved when new sources show up, and since fictional articles have to be primarily based on secondary sources, there is no risk of unbalancing them with secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge mainly per Folken. The analysis section of this page is mostly irrelevant to Spira. There's useful information about the development of FFX here, but it should be, easily can be, and largely already is included in the page on FFX. --erachima talk 18:24, 10 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Pretty[edit]

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

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

"Ron Pretty has been a leading figure in the Australian poetry scene for decades". Sadly, the article doesn't support this claim with any sources, and I see nothing on Google Books, nor any significant, mainstream, independent works discussing him on the web. "he published 230 books of poetry" - impressive, but they seem to have generated next to no feedback I see. The claim to notability rests on "He won the New South Wales Premier's Literary Awards and an AM for services to Australian literature." per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals: "The person's work (or works)... has won significant critical attention." - but is any of those really significant? This is a regional award whose article relies soley on self-published sources, putting its very notability in doubt. As such, while I'd love to see this rescued, currently I am not seeing how it can - but perhaps someone else can find better sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the case of Ron Pretty, hopefully the Membership of the Order of Australia for services to literature should be regarded as a sufficient independent source of significance. The AM is "the pre-eminent way Australians recognise the achievements and service of their fellow citizens." see http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/awards/medals/member_order_australia.cfm#significance
• While poetry in Australia is indeed not "mainstream" - it is a miniscule market from an economic perspective - there is much of significance which occurs in Australia that is not. It is precisely these kinds of achievements that honour systems such as the Order of Australia are set up to recognise. To suggest Ron is not significant enough for Wikipedia is to suggest that Australian poetry itself, and also the formal national apparatus by which significance in australian literature is recognised and honoured has no significance. To call it a "regional award whose article relies soley (sic) on self-published sources" is quite inaccurate. An eminent 19-member Council for the Order of Australia considers the nominations. The Council makes its recommendations, independent of government, direct to the Governor-General. It is "regional" only in that it represents an Australian National honour, not an international one. It smacks somewhat of cultural imperialism to suggest that the notability conferred by Australian Literature's pre-eminent honour is "in doubt". I would suggest that statement would need to be supported by some reference to some notion of the inferiority of Australian culture generally if it were to be accepted. — --Paulknight34b (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggestion that the 230 books Ron Pretty published generated "no feedback" also requires verification. There may be a misunderstanding here. In the original context the statement is "During the twenty year period he ran Five Islands Press he published 230 books of poetry", ie: Ron as founder and director of the [Five Islands Press] was the publisher not the author of the 230 books. To maintain that the books generated almost no feedback, one would have to look at the critical reputation of, and commentary about a generation of Australian poets who had works published by the press. This search for the press on wikipedia gives some idea of the number of poets and award winning works published by the Five Islands Press. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Five+Islands+Press&button=&title=Special%3ASearch The statement is either a misunderstanding or simply incorrect. The feedback on the books has been substantial in terms of sales, impact on the Australian literature scene and awards given to the works. --Paulknight34b (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paul, thanks for the clarification, and yes, I misread the 230 books part. Still, the article could greatly benefit from showing that this person has been discussed by Australian mainstream media. See also general guideline on Wikipedia:Notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regrettably Ron was most influential before the internet was widespread, and despite his impact there is not much mainstream media coverage available on the internet. I have reworded so that statements are better supported and included more references including his most recent book on Google and some of the more significant reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 07:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: his full bibliography is now in the article, and a reference to a mainstream press review of his recent work.--Paulknight34b (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note also that the new years honours, such as the Order of Australia are usually announced in the mainstream press, so his name and citation would be there, but links do not appear to be available online. The lack of links should not preclude notability however... the guidelines do recognise that people can be notable without it being mentioned on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulknight34b (talk • contribs) 02:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are the 708 entries for Ron Pretty in the AustLit national literary database relevant to this debate? http://www.austlit.edu.au/austlit/search/page?query=ron+pretty&facetSampleSize=500&facetValuesSize=10&count=50 Jfk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfknorth (talk • contribs) 04:03, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The initial recommendation for deletion was based on a misapprehension of the significance of the Order of Australia honour, and a misunderstanding of the significance of the Five Islands press work. Also additional objective reviews and references have been added to the article. --Paulknight34b (talk) 02:39, 3 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 14:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant critical attention has now been documented, and the Order of Australia honour is significant. --Boson (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 17:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 17:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 17:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Two notable awards, one at the national level, should be enough, and our article is adequately sourced. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep two ways. Per WP:ANYBIO multiple awards. And per WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 7 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 no consensus. No consensus to delete; nominator complained that "article read like an advertisment" and the only other participant in the discussion cleaned up the article. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 07:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Manuals Development Group[edit]

Precision Manuals Development Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I have nominated this page as a AfD because it reads like an advertisment, and so falls under the Wikipedia:G11 Criteria. --Bookbloxer (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, they've made Salon and the WSJ. I don't know if that means they meet whatever notability criteria. It's been improved since nom. and doesn't read like an ad anymore. — Lfdder (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I am finding some coverage in the news, many reviews from Avsim.com, and a Google book result shows some hits as far as reviews go in compilation collections of the magazines FlyPast and Air Enthusiast. ([27]) I started to add those, but I wasn't given a specific page on the Google Books view and I can't find the specific issue number they appeared in. PMDG's website has some reviews listed, but many of those are coming up as dead links so I can't verify how usable all of the reviews would've been. Some of them look like they might be unusable to show notability, although there are plenty of Avsim reviews. It does have some trivial mentions in various locations as being one of the best or at least as a notable example in the field, as is in the case in this book written by someone who seems to work for the German National Museum for Art and Cultural History. It's all sort of weak so far, but it's not exactly a clear cut case of delete in this instance. In any case, I removed any of the prose that might have potentially been seen as too overtly promotional and I've removed the forum sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Closing admins might want to look at this AfD, as this is somewhat related to that as far as deletion and notability rationale goes. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The coverage out there is slim, but the company has received multiple reviews from places considered to be a RS as far as we're concerned. Not much is out there, but it's just enough to barely squeak by notability guidelines. There is more coverage out there, but some of it isn't on the Internet for various reasons (magazines folded, pages crashed, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:36, 27 September 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 14:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (gab) @ 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video game-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (converse) @ 17:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Routes in Mysore[edit]

Bus Routes in Mysore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, we don't need an article listing every stop on every bus route in this city. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a valid encyclopedic topic. {_C  A S U K I T E  ^T} 16:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 17:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete I agree with the nominator under the basis of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I guess there could be possibly be a scenario in which the specific bus routes of a political division can be notable in and of themselves, but that unlikely happenstance is not apparent here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blasphemy Day[edit]

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

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

After the initial proclamation in 2009, appears to be no significant coverage in the media. No appearance of continued or notable observation outside a few press releases and web blogs. Delete per WP:PERSISTENCE. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it receives little mainstream media attention, Blsaphemy Day has come a rallying point for organizations fighting to end blasphemy laws around the world. It receives frequent mention in outlets related to secularism, atheism and freethought, as a quick Google will demonstrate. I believe that this level of ongoing interest is enough to invoke Notability is not temporary. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: As per nom. All sources about the article subject are from 2009 (excluding the ones that are only used to source that certain countries have blasphemy laws) and has none other from the following years. If the event was notable enough to invoke NTEMP, I would have expected something at least from 2013 covering it in a reliable third party independent source. Since there isn't one, I think this is not notable and should be deleted. I also remind Techbear that WP:SET states that search engine tests are not reliable for that purpose. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was promoted for 2013 by the Center for Inquiry (http://www.centerforinquiry.net/oncampus/campaign_for_free_expression) and by the American Atheists (http://news.atheists.org/2013/09/30/today-is-international-blasphemy-day/). It received a write-up in The Inquisitr (http://www.inquisitr.com/973933/happy-blasphemy-day-censored/), which seems a sufficiently reliable source to appear in the references to more than 100 Wikipedia articles, and The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/24/the-reason-atheist-activists-are-inviting-people-to-stone-them/). While blogs are not reliable sources for encyclopedic references, I would be happy to provide a score of links pointing to Blasphemy Day activities sponsored by local atheist and freethought organizations around the world.

If we are going to follow the standard set by Wkharrisjr and God Save the Queen, it follows that articles such as United States presidential election, 1996 must also be deleted: how much coverage has that gotten in the media recently? The declaration of Blasphemy Day received considerable attention when it was first declared in 2009. While media attention has waned, it remains a rallying point for numerous organizations and still receives coverage in sources that are used by Wikipedia as reliable sources. Rather than deleting the article, we should be working to update the references and bringing in newer references. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 21:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is on an atheist or freethought webpage, that's hardly a reliable third party source is it? The inquisitr webpage uses a blog as it's primary source for the story, I don't think that's reliable because all that means is they've reported someone's opinion as if it were news. Regarding the example of the election, yes it hasn't been in the news recently but it has still received media coverage in a wide range reliable sources after 1996 whereas this hasn't. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:The C of E wrote "If it is on an atheist or freethought webpage, that's hardly a reliable third party source is it?" So, by that reasoning, if some topic regarding the Catholic Church is predominantly written about on Catholic webpages, that makes them unreliable as third-party sources?! How 'bout if most articles about CERN show up on physics websites rather than on "Luddite" sites? -can't use physics websites as reliable third-party sources? More to the point: since you are a theist, and therefore likely biased against atheists, should we consider your opinion to be relevant? Blasphemy Day may be less likely to be touted by anti-atheists, but it's hardly ignored by them. This year, the Free Republic (a conservative and anti-atheist site) did an article that mentioned Blasphemy Day (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2989249/posts), as did the Christian site the Denison Forum on Truth & Culture (http://www.denisonforum.org/cultural-commentary/715-prisoner-requests-dragons-blood-for-wiccan-faith), and many other non-atheist sites. Bricology (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentum ad hominem in motion. My opinion is not relevant here but Wikipedia guidelines are and WP:RS with WP:BIASED, WP:GNG and WP:NRV supports my points that this should be deleted because of a lack of reliable sources. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C of E -- I don't think you understand what ad hominem means, any more than you understand what "bias" means. It's not ad hominem for me to point out that you're dismissing a broad range of media as "unreliable" for the fact that they're pro something, any more than it's unreliable for you to post your opinion, given that you're anti- something. You can't have it both ways; either biases are relevant or they're not. My argument is that they're not. Bricology (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dismissing them as unreliable because WP:RS says that they are. No opinion involved here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, The C of E, you clearly don't understand WP:RS, if you think it renders sites like RichardDawkins.net as "unreliable third-party sources", much less sites like The Center for Inquiry -- the very group that sponsors Blasphemy Day! If you were to actually read WP:RS, you would've noticed that, under the heading "Biased or opinionated sources", it says this: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." (emphases added). It also states "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves...". By your tortured definition of WP:RS, no website could be used to demonstrate the notability of an event, if that website could be accused of having a position of advocacy. Therefore, no website affiliated with Catholicism or the Catholic Church could serve as a reliable source for information about something that only members of the Church would know or care about, such as Saint's Days. Clearly, that's an absurd standard. Bricology (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I just did a Google advanced search using "blasphemy day" and the timeframe of the past year as the two parameters. There were 181 hits (excluding duplicates), including multiple mentions of 2013's Blasphemy Day celebration on the website of the Center for Inquiry (the group that sponsors Blasphemy Day), as well as on the official Facebook page's notice of this year's celebration (17,000 "likes"), mentions of it on the popular RichardDawkins.net, on Fark.com, on NationalDayCalendar.com, on PolicyMic.com and a variety of other sites, blogs, fora, etc. In short, Blasphemy Day has been celebrated -- and documented -- every year for the past five years, and shows no signs of going away. Bricology (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"richarddawkins.net", oh yes very reliable(!) Facebook page likes? Read WP:POPULARITY (and the same point applies to the !vote below.) Blogs? Read WP:BLOGS. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, RichardDawkins.net is a reliable source, as per the standards of WP:RS (see specifics I posted above). You may not agree with their opinions, but that's utterly irrelevant. The only question here is notability. When a website with RichardDawkins.net's Alexa rating, visibility and credibility writes about something, it very likely becomes notable. When many such websites do the same, it easily passes WP:N. Bricology (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Its a "popular" holiday in the skeptic community, I know I've seen a lot about it from CFI and it is spreading outside the community. Way more popular than Boob Quake was. And this is an ongoing event that grows each year.Sgerbic (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not temporary. Once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Therefore, whether or not it has gotten significant coverage since 2009 is immaterial. Further, I tend to reject C of E's stance that freethought and atheist websites are not reliable sources per se. I believe that C of E has confused "reliable" with "neutral". While Wikipedia's articles must be written from a neutral point of view, the sources used for those pages do not have to be. Just as I would expect fashion-centric sources to cover the latest styles from Milan, I would expect freethought and atheist sources to cover this subject. Context matters and we should judge each source on its own merits and not dismiss them out of hand simply because they have a certain POV. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 02:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Shinmawa mostly. Also see this book mention and this, for example, as hints of impact and coverage still going on. --cyclopia^speak! 14:04, 18 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 Steven Van Zandt#Personal life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Van Zandt[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. She is not notable as an actress, per WP:NACTOR (she has not had "significant roles in multiple [films or TV shows]", and she is not notable by her association to her husband, per WP:NOTINHERITED. I suggest delete, though we could perhaps merge/redirect to Steven Van Zandt#Personal life. GiantSnowman 13:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (whisper) @ 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 17:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete Having a role in 1 television show does not make someone notable, unless maybe they have the lead role, which she didn't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Steven Van Zandt#Personal life where she is mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Bushranger and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 17 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 Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Club. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Football Club[edit]

Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe this page is a lesser duplicate of Gibraltar Barbarians Rugby Club and since this is less developed than the other, I recommend that this page be deleted or merged and the other be moved into the name as appropriate. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Gibraltar is not part of Spain. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - you don't need to take this through the deletion process,, just WP:BEBOLD and merge it. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. Also agree with Barney. --Bob247 (talk) 21:32, 10 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. WP:SOFTDELETE. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Midual[edit]

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

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." The most recent news, from July 2011, about Midual is at VisorDown, which says the Midual is "a machine that got a fair bit of publicity when it was shown as a prototype back in 1999, but then disappeared without trace." Nothing since. So it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). There needs to be significant, sustained coverage in multiple sources that cover this company/product in depth. The designer and mockup builder, Glynn Kerr, speaks of it in the past tense [28]. If the bike is ever produced, then there will be sources, and then there will be a reason to have an article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I restored this based on the argument "Company still exists, based in the city of Angers (France),official name is RDMO, bike is still in development" made by 88.74.141.162. See whether this IP can improve the article with some current sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:49, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learning entropy[edit]

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

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

WP:N. No evidence that this is a mainstream concept. Only four citations are given that discuss the concept, all of which share a common author, and only one of which appears even to be to a peer-reviewed journal. Hundreds of thousands of papers appear each year, all of which present some new concept, method or argument; but very few are notable. Evidence of other people finding value in the concept and taking it up is required -- notability here for ideas essentially requires them to be mainstream, textbook material; or at the very least to be getting a shedload of citations. Not just a clutch of non-invited conference papers all by the same author. Furthermore, the concept even as presented here seems excessively vague and woolly. The material here fails to define or present it in any way that seems even remotely operationally usable -- from the article, one cannot even tell what the idea is; and it seems to have no relation at all to anything conventionally called entropy, to justify its name. This looks like fringe science and self-promotion, a poorly defined notion falling far short of the notability or widespread interest required for an article here, despite having found somebody at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation to agree to put it into mainspace. It should be removed. Jheald (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked in Web of Science for items referencing any work by the researcher who proposed this concept. I found (without being very careful) 16 items, of which 15 are by either the same researcher or his PhD supervisor. The 16th is http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/NEUREL.2006.341187 which I did not manage to access. Thus I agree that this concept is lacking notability at this moment. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Also WP:COI, the creator of the article being user:Ibukovsky who is clearly the main author of the references. D.Lazard (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks notability, per nom. Ozob (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What parts of the article that can be parsed as English, and not just buzzwords strung together, seem nonsensical. E.g. somehow it's possible to recover the octane rating of gasoline (and not just a number correlated with it) from some parameterized description of an engine's behavior? This seems to be intended to impress and not to inform, and is therefore not encyclopedic, on top of the WP:OR issues already mentioned. As such it violates WP:NPOV: we need a neutral outsider perspective on whether there really is any value in this research, and we're not going to get it from looking at the research itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not even wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete I agree on the notability issue and some of the other remarks above - a good lesson how Wikipedia works and good to learn its working well. Thanks for the work of Wikipedia reviewers. User:Ibukovsky, 8 October 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibukovsky (talk • contribs) 08:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Through a blazing act of my own ignorance, I didn't notice that the articles were all by the same authors when I accepted this at AfC. Delete per the issues that are well addressed above and WP:SNOW. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 21:46, 9 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Scarver[edit]

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

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

Non-notable criminal who is only of any interest because of who he killed. The relevant guideline for perpetrators is that the victim be a "person of national or international renown". The victim simply being notable is not sufficient. Subject also fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO1E. Redirect to Jeffrey Dahmer was reverted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Anderson (2nd nomination). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was substantial coverage of this event so it's perplexing the nom would say it fails WP:GNG. Granted the article is not currently well sourced but my update[30] to the Jesse Anderson AfD showed there are 100s of books, newspapers and magazine articles on this topic on a local, national and international scale. WP:BIO1E is nuanced, in fact separate articles can be justified if the person killed is of high notability, as is the case here. It's hard to understand the nom's belief that the victim, Jeffrey Dahmer, is not a "person of national or international renown" for the purposes of WP:CRIMINAL. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Outside of serial killer groupies Jeffrey Dahmer is not held in any renown. And you're right, the event was covered. The person is not the event. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For notability purposes fame and infamy are the same. People who kill famous/infamous people can be notable. Jeffrey Dahmer is infamous outside "serial killer groupies". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• People who kill famous people certainly can be notable, but simply killing a famous person does not automatically confer notability since notability is not inherited. Can you find any sources that substantively cover this individual in any sort of depth, or are you merely plugging his name into Google and counting how many times his name is mentioned without investigating further? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The rule of discussion here is WP:GNG, which says "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that's what this topic has. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Show me the sources that significantly cover the individual (as opposed to the event). "Dahmer was killed by an inmate named Christopher Scarver" does not constitute significant coverage of Scarver, no matter how many sources repeat it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - basic WP:GNG covers this. Green Cardamom is right about basically everything.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found some significant coverage. [31] [32] [33] [34] The nominator is incorrect in stating that all of Scarver's notability comes from killing Dahmer. Here is a news piece from 1990 about him, four years before Dahmer's death. Here is one from 1992, and another. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 22:54, 10 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 Visa (document). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Visitor visa[edit]

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

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

Article content is already (and imho more thoroughly) covered on the following pages:

• Visa (document)
• United States visas
• Visa policy of Australia
• Visa policy in the European Union
• Visa requirements for British nationals

- Sulfurboy (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Visa (document) as a plausible search term. AllyD (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Visa (document) - seems like a sensible redirect but the content is covered elsewhere. Stalwart111 07:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 7 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arielle Stevenson[edit]

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

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

No clear indication of notability, no independent references. Unwisely accepted from AfC two years ago. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see where she's written things, but not where she's actually been the focus of any in-depth coverage. I also can't see where any of her articles/shows/photos are so notable that they'd merit a keep on that basis either. She exists, I'm familiar with her work, and I believe I've used her as a RS before, but that doesn't give notability on any of those fronts. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being a journalist, even NYT published, isn't notable. Need sources about the journalist or work. Typically with book reviews when/if publish a book. Or a major award such as Pulitzer. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Run-of-the-mill journalist who may have received a bit of coverage in local press due to her age, but otherwise has done nothing and written nothing to achieve notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG based on online sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:40, 9 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Rich[edit]

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

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

apparently promotional article on non notable attorney and author; one non-notable book. DGG ( talk ) 03:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- actually a barrister, not an attorney. It is not clear whether he is practising as a barrister or has become a backroom worker in the media industry. However this is a clear case of notability not being inherited - in this case from his clients. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE #3 (multiple reviews), sources include:

• Director magazine[35]
• StartupTV Magazine [36]
• Huffington Post [37]
• Business Matters [38]
• BBC [39]
• CMI Management Book of the Year [40] (in association with the British Library)
• The Times [41]
• The Jewish Chronicle [42]
• The Guardian [43]
• City A.M. [44]

That's 9 or 10 independent reliable sources that cover the subject and/or his works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]