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} 09:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barren planet (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 is a piece of EVE Online fancruft masquerading as a science article. The only link defining this topic is to an EVE Online website. Serendi^podous 23:13, 5 February 2014 (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/2014 February 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This term is common both in science fiction and reality when talking about planets. Three out of four planets in our solar system are barren planets——Mars, Venus, and Mercury. In the near future when more and more rocky exoplanets are found and diversify, then barren planets might be commonly discussed in scientific journals. PlanetStar 23:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's just an adjective attached to a noun, no more acceptable than jungle planet. Ocean planet at least has some references to justify its existence. If it ever becomes a scientific classification, then we can talk, but not until then. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yes, it exists in science fiction and PC gaming, but is it notable? There's a big difference between popular and notable. When it becomes a notable topic, we can discuss it then. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources get added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Various scifi (games, literature, etc.) calling various things a barren planet isn't going to get us an encyclopedic article. At best it's going to be a List of barren planets in fiction. But I'm not sure that satisfies WP:LISTN. As for Mars, Venus, etc., the accepted scientific terminology is telluric planet or rocky planet. "Barren planet" is not even among the proposed sub-types of that. Some science texts use the term informally [1][2] but without even a proposed (let alone somewhat broadly accepted) definition in a science source, this article isn't getting off the ground per WP:GNG, etc. I can even find the term pretty planet in some introductory science books [3]. I hope nobody considers creating an article for that. (As a side-point, the Universe Today article cited [4] doesn't even use the word "barren", so the wiki article is also a case of WP:SYN.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Thought I'm aware of WP:PERNOM, I have to agree with Someone not using his real name's excellent outline. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:53, 11 February 2014 (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 Criticism of Yahoo!. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pincus v. Yahoo! Inc. (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:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT (specifically WP:ROUTINE). This is yet another class action lawsuit. If there's a scandal about Yahoo! ad targeting, then maybe write about the scandal.

Also WP:XBALL likely applies: This is a federal class action suit that was filed on November 15th. There hasn't even been a reply by Yahoo!, let alone a 12(b)(6) motion yet. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete* Not notable enough of a law suit. There are literally hundreds of law suits filed a day. If anything we need an article for those ambulance chaser class action commercials. It would at least be a high traffic page from people googling them. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo! or delete. If it turns out to have lasting significance, it can always be documented there. Otherwise, it should probably just be deleted. I agree with the nom that this article trips several red flags, including WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not crazy about redirecting to that target, but mostly because of gripes I have with that article being a POV-forky, coatracky, news aggregator-like laundry list of negative media stories about Yahoo. However, I also think that this as a redirect would meet WP:R#D4 and WP:R#D10. I don't think WP:R#K1 would apply here because of just how little content there is in the article at present. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo! --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 07:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo! --BiH (talk) 16:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge to Yahoo! litigation. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC) (article creator)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability. Do not redirect; the case at present is not sufficiently notable to be discussed in either of the proposed target articles; it's not discussed in them, nor should it be, at the present time. A Wikipedia user searching on this would be better served by getting a not-found message than being redirected to an article that does not discuss it. TJRC (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Criticism of Yahoo!. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: can those proposing a redirect explain the value they perceive in redirecting to an article that does not discuss the subject? WP:Redirects are cheap, of course, but if the redirect has no value (indeed a negative value, in that it misleadingly suggests to a reader that the target has something to do with what they searched for or clicked on), it's not a matter of whether it's cheap, it's whether it's helpful or the opposite. TJRC (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, as I commented above, this is a problem. I think it's in part a matter of the standard outcome for an AfD where there's an even plausible redirect target because edit histories are presumed to be valuable. While I concede that the edit history might be valuable if this case eventually has lasting significance, I dispute that this is a reason to keep the redirect (see WP:XBALL) and furthermore disagree that Criticism of Yahoo! is an appropriate target. As to whether Yahoo! litigation is appropriate, I agree with TJRC that it is not because it contains no mention of this litigation, and indeed should not per WP:UNDUE; that is, a merge would be inappropriate there as well. Finally, though perhaps out of the scope of this discussion, both Criticism of Yahoo! and Yahoo! litigation are themselves problematic and possibly meriting of merging/redirecting elsewhere themselves. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above, to the Criticism or the Litigation article. That will save any article history. We almost never keep articles about recently filed lawsuits, which are very common, and earlier in my life, I contributed mightily to the flood of paper in our nation's courts. Bearian (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It may be pure coincidence, but the nominator here is also involved/nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Yu/other articles that I created which are currently in wp:AFD. XOttawahitech (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because most of the articles you create have no place on Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I can't say anything more than what has already been said above. -DJSasso (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2014 (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 Newsboys discography. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

8 Great Hits (Newsboys 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:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any decent sources and didn't chart, so fails WP:NALBUMS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC) Yeah, The Bushranger is right. Redirect to Newsboys discography. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete' as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources get added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Newsboys discography; redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barq Aviation (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)

Corporation does not appear to meet the WP:GNG. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to delete this page. It is accurate and not breaking any rules. Removing this page would be removing a perfectly good article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AirportExpert (talk • contribs) 23:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Charter operations are not usually notable, and I'm not seeing any indication here that the general notability guideline is met for this air charter operation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that all articles about charter airlines are not worthy of a Wikipedia article?--AirportExpert (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that unlike a scheduled airline, which is considered to be notable because it operates as a scheduled airline, a charter operation must meet the general notability guideline through verifiable coverage in reliable sources, which isn't evident here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your reasoning for wishing to delete this article. It is accurate and had no lies or flaws.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Wikipedia does not keep articles because they are accurate, it keeps them because the subjects are notable. There is not enough coverage in reliable sources to evidence that Barq Aviation is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a database of information, signifigant or not. There are thousands of sites such as this one on wikipedia, and they are just improved, not removed, So why do you want to remove Barq Aviation so badly?--AirportExpert (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

This is where you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not a databse, and to be covered in it information must be significant. The "thousands of [other] sites" are not relevant to whether or not Barq Aviation is notable. I don't want to remove it "so badly", it would be my preference that it not be removed at all. But if it cannot be verified through reliable sources that Barq Aviation is notable, Barq Aviation cannot have a page on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to find reliable sites for Barq Aviation, then will the deletion go away?--AirportExpert (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

If you can find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, as explained here, then the AfD would likely be closed, once it has run its course in a week, as Keep, yes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, this needs to be sources that actually discuss Barq, not a basic profile site that's database driven. READ the page The Bushranger linked for you. The key part is significant coverage. Something like "A flight from Barq has landed at this airport" is not significant. Ravensfire (talk) 00:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG and especially not WP:CORP which requires multiple independent third party refs to show notability and thus keep this article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's just a company that owns a few airplanes. JohnInDC (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or create List of airlines in Jordan, which may satisfy WP:LISTN. This does not seem to satisfy WP:CORP. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, list of airlines of Jordan already exists. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, it does, doesn't it? Well, in that case, maybe we should redirect it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because although they just own a few planes, that is how all charter companies work, and there are many charter airline pages on Wikipedia.--AirportExpert (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]

Just a note, but for your opinion here to carry any weight you will have to show how this meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. What you have written is pretty much WP:ILIKEIT. - Ahunt (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As well as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources in the article are either the company itself or utterly trivial. One of them (repeated twice) doesn't even support what it's being used for as it shows the aircraft transferred. Searching google found absolutely nothing useful. Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence they are notable. Just because they rent and charter aircraft doesn't make them notable. Canterbury Tail talk 21:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep They are notable for being one of the last airlines to operate the tristar.--AirportExpert (talk) 23:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
  • Please note you're only allowed to !vote once in an AfD. Also, that is not a claim to notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is it not a claim to notability? --AirportExpert (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)AirportExpert[reply]
      • Operating the last examples of a once-dirt-common airliner that is only recently retired and is still operated by other operators does not establish notability. Now, if they were still operating Lockheed Constellations, that would be a claim to notability. (Also, please properly indent your replies, it is difficult to follow the flow of a conversation otherwise.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources get added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2014 (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. If anyone would like access to the content of this article for the purpose of merging it back to the parent article, let me (or any other admin) know, and I'll restore it to user space. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 04:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Cup 2013 (football) (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 friendly competition that fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It's a association football club competition in its fourth edition (as in 2014), contested by notable association football (such as Rapid Wien, Brondby IF, F.C. Copenhagen, FC Midtjylland, FC Slovan Liberec,FC Spartak Moscow) and currently broadcasted by the TV channel Eurosport. Due to this it futhfills WP:GNG.Rpo.castro (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - fails to establish notability per WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (or citing of such). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Edition of a yearly international tournament of football. 2014 edition has Eurosport coverage.Scblaster (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom, no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because something is broadcast does not make it inherently notable, particularly a friendly competition in the off-season. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for Eurosport, not notable for wikipedia...interesting.And the tens of friendly off-season competition articles in the wikipedia?Rpo.castro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, Eurosport is not WP. Pretty obvious really, they have a need to fill their schedule, you wouldn't have an aticle on each individual friendly football match broadcast simply because it was on Eurosport, so why automatically for every friendly set of matches? Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, the presence of other friendly tournaments has no bearing on this discussion. if they are thought by an editor to be non-notable then they should come here for discussion too. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 13:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:GNG "...Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation...". The article has 3 secondary independent sources. There is a lot more I could add but since they are from portugueses, danish and swedish snewspapers/news websites, governing bodies and association football organizations, not en english I think thtat wasn't needed. Who claims about the lack of notability should read WP:GNG first.Rpo.castro (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Independent" does not mean "significant" and / or "reliable". The first source is a press release from the company running the event and so is an unreliable primary source as far as GNG goes and hardly independent, the second does discuss the tournament, but only briefly, hardly the level of coverage required by GNG. The final source is merely routine match reporting confirming the games went ahead, with out eve nany commenary or reporting on them. If there are foreing language sources out there that do more than simply produce match reports, please cite them. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More references added.Rpo.castro (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are significant coverage. They are a small newspaper article and a series of very brief match reports. Fenix down (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a footbaal competition. Its shown references with the schedule of the game, news about the matchs, with description of the game play (isn't it the most important about a sport competition), article about the Rapid Victory in the competition, and a detailed article about the Silkeborg IF campaing. Not significant coverage? By which criteria?Rpo.castro (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:ROUTINE, you get match reports about games played at almost any level if you look hard enough. The "article" on Rapid, is 106 words long when you discount the line ups, how can that possibly be considered significant coverage? I presume you mean this for the article on Silkeborg (as the other source is only 58 words long)? This is an article published by the Amendoeira Golf Resort about the team staying at... the Amendoeira Golf Resort! Not a reliable source for GNG as this is a primary source. Please show where there are reliable non-rimary sources that discuss the tournament in detail, not just merely provide match summaries or press releases. Fenix down (talk) 15:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Individual seasons of this tournament are hardly notable. – PeeJay 20:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Questionable whether the tournament itself is notable, individual seasons are certainly not per lack of non-trivial WP:RS coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per Ohnoitsjamie; the Cup itself is of dubious notability, and there is literally no way that individual iterations are notable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly not notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect back to The Atlantic Cup (football). It's a big enough annual event, televised on EuroSport, it is major enough and there must exist news reports in major media about it, it is worth having a Wikipedia article on it. The main article is not too long to require splitting out separate years yet. This could be a section. Completely deleting it seems unnecessary and probably BITEY. Merging the material seems a compromise. There is now also an AFD on The Atlantic Cup (football), at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Atlantic Cup (football) which I will oppose. --doncram 17:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Bitey? The article creator has been around almost as long as I have. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Doncram, except for the "bitey" part. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for the same reassons as Doncram above. Stepojevac (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OnForce Solar (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 is promotional article, without any references. There are no reliable sources, even the company's own website is down at the moment. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I had already removed the promotional content when the nom was placed, minutes after I declined a speedy tag. I have already added one cite to a major newspaper article. I find it hard to belive that the nominator had time to comply with WP:BEFORE. Tell me, Vanjagenije, what efforts did you make to source this before rushing to AfD? DES ^(talk) 22:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, sorry, I rushed it. I want to revoke the nomination. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well, Vanjagenije, it is easy to get in too much of a hurry here. If you want to withdraw, then strike your nominating statement, and some 3rd party will close this as withdrawn. That is no bar to a later nomination if you or any editor think it doesn't belong for whatever reason. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 5 February 2014 (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. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Contested PROD. Original concern is still valid "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." JMHamo (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- This article claims that he played for PFC Marek Dupnitsa in 2007 and this link supports this claim. From 2006 season to 2008 season Marek competed in top division league of Bulgarian football which is a fully professional league. So he doesn't fail on WP:NFOOTY for this reason. Hitro talk 20:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 20:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• transfermarkt is not considered a reliable source, can you find another source to back-up your claim? JMHamo (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I know it is not a reliable source that is why I didnt vote for keep. I am not good at Cyrillic letters so I cant search through Bulgarian sources, but i guess creator of this article may (or anybody who can read or write Bulgarian). I am just trying to verify the notability of this player through claims made within the article. Hitro talk 22:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Played for PFC Marek Dupnitsa which was then in top league of Bulgarian football (Bulgarian A PFG) in 2007. This league is listed as fully professional at WP:FPL thus fulfilling WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This would confer notability, if it were confirmed by reliable sources. It currently isn't. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't the basis of the nomination. However this video [5] shows him with the Marek squad. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of was, as Transfermarkt is not accepted as a reliable source. The youtube video isn't either as it is not possible to tell whether this is a competitive match let alone a league one. Fenix down (talk) 08:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Small Keep This took me a long long thinking and checking the net for this player. He did play two seassons in the top Bulgarian league and now plays in the top Slovenian league. Both are to be concidered fully proffesional leagues. He did play as pro in Bahrain but in second league. In Serbian league he played in division 3 and 4 which are not fully profesional. Is he notable. Not much sorry. He is mentioned in several news pages in Slovenia as a potencial good player for NK Celje so it could be counted as a minor notability. What this page misses are better sources. The writer is eather using unrealiable sources like Transfermark or to few of them to actually prove notability. If its a keep in the end that part needs working upon.Stepojevac (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2014 (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} 09:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overview (band) (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)

Band has not been signed. Not notable JDDJS (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cites only one review on a minor website, not enough to pass WP:NMUSIC. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If added, would these ([6][7]) be enough? Tezero (talk) 23:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails WP:BAND. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:57, 11 February 2014 (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} 09:59, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SPADE (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)

Page appears to be WP:COI promotion of an academic project. The initial paper, which seem to be the one titled "A jabber-based multi-agent system platform" (2006) only has some ~35 citations in ACM and about the same number in GS, so I assume this isn't a wp:notable piece of software. All sources cited are wp:primary publications. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom (lack of secondary sources, most importantly). Also clearly promotional/COI. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent sources. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if such sources get added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This does not appear to be a hoax. However, this stub article would benefit from improved sourcing. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messapus (King of Sicyon) (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 seams to be a hoax. Word "Messapus" is not mentioned in the cited "source". I can't find reliable source to prove existence of this subject. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (or Merge to the appropriate history). This does not seem to be a hoax, as there are fairly longstanding articles on this subject on German Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, and Slovak Wikipedia, with the latter two each citing numerous sources. Perhaps it will be easier to find sources under the spelling, Messapos. bd2412 T 21:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Presence of the subject in other Wikipedias is not an evidence against it being a hoax. And I'm not sure that "Messapos" or "Messapos" is mentioned in any of those sources. Sources are off-line, so I can't verify, but the one online source at Slovakian Wikipedia article ([8]) does not mention him at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The other Wikipedia articles seem to have been made over a period of many years, by different editors. If this is a hoax, it's an extremely long and multilingual one. I have asked the creator of the German Wikipedia version (a well-established editor there) for input here. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sources but have no idea whether they are reliable or not. Theroadislong (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's certainly not a hoax, though the current sources are appalling (some fruitcake website saying "No poet in ancient Greece was ever considered worthy of special honor unless he was demented") and a book published in 1810, for example (which does at least refer to "Meſſapus, the ninth king of Sicyon"). From what I can gather Sicyon king-lists have been used by literalist Christan writers to synchronise Biblical history with ancient Greek chronologies, which is what most of the "unreliable" sources are doing. Also it's not clear whether all the sources refer to the same Messapus. Paul B (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although I share Paul B's concerns. Dougweller (talk) 11:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm the creator of the german article. Messapus, the eighth/ninth king of Sicyon is only mentioned by the ancient chronicler Eusebius [9] and Jerome [10] and by Augustine of Hippo in City of God (book) [11]. Schuppi (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2014 (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. Favonian (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable individual. THere are no reliable independent sources with significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be deleted because it is all about innovation what college students is doing in terms of an IT.And what i have written all are correct and authenticated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagwalamurtaza (talk • contribs) 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The guy executed a college level project and managed to post it in some website. No other claim of notability. Salih (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, delete it.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep.It is Notable because if the top news papers of India i.e(Times of India and Nai Duniya) is publishing about him then it should be notable.It is not about the college project but it is all about the innovation . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagwalamurtaza (talk • contribs) 10:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC) *Keep.It is Notable because references justify it and I had also read article about him in news papers of India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagwalamurtaza (talk • contribs) 10:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already made your opinion known above. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just a guy who has done a college project. No indication of what he has done in the article. Bevo74 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As already stated, doing a project in college does not establish notability. No widespread coverage by the industry; no major awards or recognition. In fact, the WP:GOOGLETEST only turns up social media profiles, no media or industry coverage at all. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.He has not developed this project for his own college but for various colleges and schools citywide and many of them are using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagwalamurtaza (talk • contribs) 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G11 SmartSE (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delicious House Records (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 about a Dutch record label with no independent secondary coverage, and no notable artists in its roster. Fails WP:CORP. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as hoax (the Bayeux Tapestry didn't record events of 1012, but did record Halley's Comet - amongst other things). Peridon (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miller's Comet (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 seams to be a hoax. I can't find anything about this "comet". All photos and images are actually Halley's comet. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as WP:CSD G3 as obvious hoax edited from the Hailey's Comet page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep and WP:TROUT the nominator for not looking for sources before hand. Secret ^account 18:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Collins (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unsourced BLP The Banner talk 20:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Above and beyond the inherent notability of professional athletes, Collins played for eight seasons in the NFL and was selected for the Pro Bowl. None of the details in his article are controversial or questionable, let's spend more time adding those sources rather than wasting time creating AfDs for articles that won't be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Contrary to the nomination statement, this article was not unsourced (it had a link to Collins' NFL.com pages), he clearly passes WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG, and it took me only a few minutes to find multiple sources to add to the page. Let's close this one now. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources have been added, clearly notable by WP:NGRIDIRON. --Colapeninsula (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep A Pro Bowler's article at AfD? Are you kidding me? WP:BEFORE, anyone? Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BEFORE is just an advice, WP:BLP is a policy and it failed that. The Banner talk 01:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. This was an extremely ill-informed nomination; if one comes across an unsourced BLP of a retired Pro Bowl football player, the obvious thing to do is to fix it, not delete it. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Flora-2 (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)

Academic software which doesn't appear notable per WP:GNG. All publications are primary sources by the same group of researchers at UBuffalo and Stony Brooks. There are about 200 citations to the papers combined, perhaps that's enough for some, but given the bloom of OWL publications, this is actually a rather low citation count. A similar system called Pellet has 1654 citation to one paper, so that might be notable, but not this. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The system is not an OWL reasoner like Pellet as the above implies. The comparison of citation counts is therefore irrelevant. Casonj (talk • contribs) 04:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone built F-OWL using flora-2, so perhaps it's not that unwarranted to compare flora-2 with another [semantic] reasoner. You are probably right that Pellet being an OWL reasoner from the get-go has affected its (academic) popularity relative to non-OWL reasoners. But F-OWL only has some ~80 citations, so not every reasoner that's OWL'd flies high. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your insistence on putting your ignorance on display it truly remarkable. Michaelkifer (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I haven't done anything like a formally tally, but a lot of the citations for flora-2 are in OWL/semweb publications. So you can't say it hasn't been (positively) affected by the boom in OWL/semweb research/publications. Maybe it's not 100% fair to compare it with Pellet for citations, but it's not 100% irrelevant either. If you think another class of reasoners is a more appropriate comparison citation-wise, please suggest which. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but why did you even start this process without really knowing the difference? And who defines the threshold anyway? Would 30 citations be too few? 40? There are a sufficient number, in my estimation, of relevant publications as well as open source projects using Flora-2. It's true that many references are authored by the developers, so what? That means the ideas have been vetted over and over by academics independent of the development team through peer review. That's noteworthy. As someone mentions below, one paper was recognized as a "Most Influential Paper" at a relevant academic conference (not semantic web - logic programming). Isn't that noteworthy? Lastly, I don't appreciate being accused of being a sock puppet. I have had as yet nothing to do with the development of Flora-2. I just happened to be someone who finds Flora-2 noteworthy and feel it's ridiculous that it's being nominated for deletion. I have edited Wikipedia before, but the fact that I don't spend all my time editing it or have all the policies memorized does not make me a sock puppet. Casonj (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is unfortunately not a guideline for this because the number of citations to consider enough varies by field. My personal rule of thumb is that less than 1,000 citations for a compsci paper is questionable notability for Wikipedia. And academic biographies are judged by similar citation-based rules of thumb using the h-index; see WP:PROF and WP:AFD/PROF for the latter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The anonymous protagonist for the deletion betrays only a specious understanding of the subject. Flora-2 is a system in the Logic programming (LP) family of knowledge representation languages. The expressive power, the capabilities, and the application domains of these systems are completely different from the OWL reasoners. The intersection between LP and OWL is rather small and uninteresting from the logic programming point of view. The Flora-2 page has also been updated by the users and more bibliography (with citation count in the thousands) was added. MichaelKifer (talk • contribs) 19:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a unique system that extends classical logic programming with FLogic, Transaction Logic, HiLog and defesible logic. There is no other system like it in the world for knowledge representation. Moreover, it is used by hundreds of users. Therefore, it would be a mistake to remove the Wikipedia page. PIFodor (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to what the above comments have discussed, much of the research upon which Flora-2 is based has proven influential. For instance, Transaction Logic, implemented in Flora-2, received a retrospective "Most Influential Paper" award at the 2013 International Conference on Logic Programming ^[1]. Other underlying logics of Flora-2 have also received awards. So in addition to being an open-source system used by various research and commercial users, Flora-2 implements a unique combination of logics, which have been specially recognized by others in the fields of logic programming and deductive databases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writtenfarces (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I can only support what has already been written and add that Flora-2 is being taught at least on two universities I know about, I my self am teaching three courses in which Flora-2 is used. Mschatten (talk • contribs) 00:46, 2 February 2014 (CET)

• Delete (see additional commentary below) - so many !votes, so few policy-based arguments. Needs to meet WP:GNG. Does it? Doesn't look like it. Stalwart111 08:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A decade of papers focussed on Flora at serious international conferences. No, of course that doesn't meet GNG – where's the MTV or Nickelodeon coverage?Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Andy, because what I called for was coverage on the Real Housewives of LA! Hmm. There are 9 references attached to the article and every single one was authored or co-authored by the creator of the software. A similar reference list for commercial software or a short film or a company or a piece of music or really anything else not "academic" in focus would be shot down instantly. Yesterday I contributed to an AFD about a college salsa dancing group where every reference was authored by the coach, the university or a single local newspaper. Great people doing great things for their college/field-of-study on the world stage but nothing by way of independent sources. Good causes (including academia) don't get a free pass. Stalwart111 22:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the issue here? If you claim that sourcing is too single-sourced, that's a valid concern. We have ways to fix that, by editing the content of the article. If you claim that there's a COI, then we have review policies for dealing with that as well.

What did WP actually do? It cited GNG, on the grounds that the topic is insignificant and non-notable. Easy way to completely remove an article one dislikes, but it's a quite inappropriate response to your concerns as stated here.

What did WP do next? A sockpuppet investigation! Alleging that Michaelkifer is the invention of another editor. Whilst simultaneously being the academic who's using this article for evil self-promotion. It doesn't really work both ways. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had no idea about the SPI until after I commented (and haven't looked at it), nor did I trawl the history of the article looking for possible COI and I don't think I've alleged one here. I generally expect to see some connected contributors when it comes to niche academic topics and I don't think these guys are in it to make millions from their software so it's probably less of an issue than areas where I usually work like WP:SKATE (I have plenty of experience with MTV references!) where companies pop up to promote their useless crap all the time. My issue is that we have a small academic community that created something and now talks about it extensively (and covers it) among themselves. The difficulty here is that the one person most likely to be considered an expert on this software is the fellow who helped create it. He'd otherwise be considered a very reliable source on related topics but that's a stretch here because of his lack of independence from the subject. An MTV analogy? Joe Jackson would be considered a reliable source with regard to Motown generally, but a less-than-independent source with regard to the Jackson 5. Put up a couple of sources from people other than those in the dev team and its a different story. The ones we have at the moment, given they don't meet WP:GNG requirements with regard to independence, probably won't suffice. Stalwart111 23:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: there's a good chance that meatpuppetry is occurring here, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Casonj for details. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't we go through this last time WP went after SemWeb topics? Proof of innocence from sockpuppetry is not the same thing as proof of meatpuppetry. Obscure topics are obscure: people who know nothing of such an obscure subject will be ignorant each in their own special way. People who work in that obscure field are likely to be knowledgeable about a topic, and for their knowledge to be very similar to each other. This is not evidence of a bad-faith action and per strong WP policies it is wrong for WP editors to imply or to act as if it is, in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary.

I am thoroughly tired of WP's inbuilt bias against SemWeb topics (WP is out to delete semantic reasoner itself at present for having "too many" links!) I am particularly tired of having to meet SemWeb people and then have to defend WP to them and explain that, despite appearances, it's not just a childish project where nothing other than K-pop and Marvel comics are taken seriously. Sure, this isn't List of Disney Princesses or anything important like that, but academic speciality is not proof of unimportance. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:GREATWRONGS. It's not Wikipedia's fault that the academic research/publication boom in SemWeb apparently did not have much real-world relevance/applications ^{[citation needed]} and thus has not received much outside coverage. ^{[citation needed]} Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> You miss the point completely. The SemWeb community doesn't give a damn whether semantic reasoner or even semantic web are deleted (yes, go ahead and AfD that too, it's the sort of petty bitchiness that WP increasingly practices). It's only Wikipedia, it doesn't matter. You make the classic Wikipedian mistake of thinking that when an article is deleted from here, it makes it vanish out in the real world too.

WP does (allegedly) have a policy of AGF. Yet when SemWeb articles are slated for deletion by the ignorant, the reaction to a bunch of academics saying that they're significant and sourced is instead "you're all just sockpuppets". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how WP:VANISPAM is better when it's written by an academic. This page (flora-2) was written by someone with an obvious WP:COI. Nobody else cared about it to cover it on Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Would you say that FB is not noteworthy if Mark Zuckerburg started the article? I think you jumped the gun at first and now are trying to save face. I don't see it working. The software is noteworthy; you just didn't do your homework. Casonj (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you mention WP:GREATWRONGS where it says "wait until it's picked up in mainstream journals", and this idea/software has been. Casonj (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was proof of meatpuppetry, so I don't know where you got that from. But when a group of long-dormant and brand new accounts all become active at the same time to vote the same way in the same discussion then I think it's fair to say there's a possibility that meatpuppetry is involved, whatever the merits of the article in question. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep A quick Google search brought up several journal entries and academic websites regarding Flora-2. There seems to be many valid sources for Flora-2.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Stalwart: References to publications unrelated to any of the developers have been added. I am sure that you will now remove all your objections, right? Also, FYI: WP articles have no value in the academia whatsoever. Michaelkifer (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Michael, that's exactly what I was looking for. There are a couple of very strong sources there including international publications that provide coverage of the subject's capabilities, features and importance in detail. You might consider linking directly to the PDF of the Schatten/ƒCubrilo/S’eva paper and some of the links are to subscription-only papers (which should be noted) but those aren't required steps for them to be considered. The added references are more than enough for me. Objections withdrawn. Stalwart111 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reason for the subscription-only links is because these are the publisher sites that published the corresponding works. They are sure to stay around for a long time, while personal web sites tend to undergo all kinds of changes. So, these links are better for WP. People can always Google to find free copies, if available. Regarding Schatten/ƒCubrilo/S’eva, this is a link to the conference site and there is a link to the paper itself on that page. This is better because the referenced page provides information for people who need to cite the paper in question. Michaelkifer (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All perfectly fine - there's a little template you can use to tag sources as subscription only, that's all. It's not required, just helpful for readers. We would generally cite the source itself but your explanation makes sense and it makes no real difference to the substance or validity of the source. I'm still comfortable with both. Stalwart111 09:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

F-Logic (which has ~2K citations in GS) has its own article. I'm not sure that other implementations of F-logic (and papers thereof) justify a separate page for Flora-2. Schatten's application papers have "F-logic" in title, although it's quite possible they've just used the Flora-2 implementation "as is", although that's not immediately apparent from their abstracts. One other academic research group using Flora-2 doesn't raise the notability a whole lot more than the aggregate (academic) citations. (And yes, I do realize F-logic and Flora-2 and [12] etc. have the same people behind it. Someone should create a bio for Michael Kifer as he clearly passes WP:PROF with a GS h-index of 45 [13]. But I'm not sure we need a WP:COI article for every paper of his.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Flora-2 is not an implementation of just F-logic, but of a combo of different logics, which doesn't occur in any other system, as someone already mentioned. All the newly referenced papers both use and refer to Flora-2, as you can easily check yourself. If you are the same anonymous user as elsewhere in this discussion page then you appear to be quite adept at shifting arguments. You have traveled quite a long way from your original post, so maybe one day you will become a user yourself :-). It is free both as in "free beer" and in "freedom." Finally, it is not just "one other research group." Check again. There are also thousands of downloads each year. But thanks for raising the issues: it certainly has helped to improve the page. Michaelkifer (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically correct, but most independent sources cited in the article see F-logic as its primary/defining characteristic (whether that's fair or not). Someone not using his real name (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2014 (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} 10:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naha City Gallery and Apartment House (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 architectural project. Although the project's creator (1100 Architect) appears notable, this particular project does not. The only source outside of the architect's own website is a listing at Archdaily.com, a website that accepts user project submissions for publication. (See ArchDaily Contact.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also appears to be covered in this book about the architects [14], for what that might be worth. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A book about the architectural firm would presumably include a compendium of the firm's projects. Again, this makes the firm notable, but not the individual projects. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with proposer that this one isn't notable. See WP:Articles for deletion/Brand New School Office, Los Angeles for more comments.  —SMALLJIM  11:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to indicate notability. --DAJF (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There's no doubt that the architectural firm is notable, but notability does not extend to its projects. However, a merge or redirect may be possible, since the article could still be a possible search term. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Randall (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)

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

Journalist of little notability as per stated standards at Wikipedia:Notability (people) Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2014 (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/2014 February 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals:

   The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
   The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
   The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
   The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't see this person qualifying under any of those or even the wp:gng Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- I do not know how prominent his textbook is, but it is one of the standard ones used by student journalists, it might be grounds for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Peter, to quote you , I do not know how prominent his textbook is and it might be grounds for notability . could you add some links to support your opinions and if you support keeping thie article please attempt to improve it, ta Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• potential sources
  • Review of the book in the British Journalism Review [15]
  • google scholar says in this paper [16] "Compare the first and second editions of David Randall's excellent synopsis on news reporting, The Universal Journalist. ... "
  • google scholar says in this paper [17] "Most recently, this view has found powerful expression in David Randall's The Universal Journalist, in which he argues that the job of the journalist is, above all, to question, and then to"
  • he is apparently cited in a number of other papers [18] [19] [20] in multiple languages [21]
• I will see if there is anything in the visible part of the book review that can be added. Does anyone have access to the other journal pieces?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's cited here too as an authority, but it doesn't say much about him. This goes towards WP:AUTHOR, but doesn't provide anything to add to the article.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - with the combination of the book review in the prominent journal and Alf.laylah.wa.laylah's recent work in adding a source identifying Randall as "a major thinker" in an area of philosophical debate, it seems he meets the criteria for several of the notability subcategories. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TRPoD.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ta for the work, though it has not changed my opinion of the subjects limited notability (perhaps wikipedia has low levels that I need to understand yet) has not changed through the addition of a book review and some promotional links but I am learning here that random minimal reviews and comments are support to keep a biography, he seems to have done nothing of citable note since 1998. Has he won any awards for his notable work, also, are you claiming he is a notable WP:Author or claiming WP:GNG note?Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:10, 11 February 2014 (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} 10:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bad Girls Club fights (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:NOT. Might as well have a list of the times Cramer opens Jerry's door on Seinfeld. Daniel(talk) 16:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE as "Summary-only descriptions of works" and (maybe a little more tenuously) "Excessive listings of statistics". This is an excessively-detailed list of things that happened in a TV show without any attempt at analysis, and no indication that in-depth expert third-party analysis exists. Hence, it's not encyclopedic content, it's strictly something for a fansite. --Colapeninsula (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic this fails WP:GNG by a mile. Secret ^account 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ....does there even need to be a reason? Yikes. – Recollected • 05:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Thorpe Aquatic and Fitness Centre (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 am concerned that this does not meet the criteria for inclusion. It appears to be a single fitness centre, not part of a chain, that is located only in suburb of Sydney. A Google search suggests the only results are the company home page and various mirror'd search sites, and one page on City Of Sydney. There appears to be no third party coverage of note, or any indication of significance or uniqueness about this fitness centre. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No third-party coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First, just to clarify, the website says this a public facility co-managed by the city of Sydney and the YMCA. More to the point, the sources show that it's an architecturally notable building, one of the last designed by the important Australian architect Harry Seidler. [22][23] [24][25][26][27][28][29] etc. etc. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is memorial of the swimmer who got five gold medal in Olympics for Australia and i think he deserve the honour. Ashishlohorung (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an architecturally-significant building and the last building designed by an important and controversial architect.--Grahame (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Architecturally significant landmark. Single fitness centre? Did the nominator even Google? The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An award winning building, designed by one of Australia's most notable architects and named after a top sportsman is surely notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm not sure that just being named after someone famous is grounds for notability, but being designed by a notable architect is. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy keep notable architecture as one of the last buildings designed by Harry Seidler as well as a significant public facility in central Sydney. It received significant media coverage for both, as shown above by Arxiloxos. --ELEKHH^T 22:17, 10 February 2014 (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} 10:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armed with Wings (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)

Lack of notability. This is just a series of flash games (very good games in my opinion, but this doesn't really matter). There are tons of other flash games on the web. See armorgames.com or miniclip.com (or a number of other similar sites) to see how many.

Well, that's right. We even have a wiki based on this series (http://aww.wikia.com/wiki/AWW_Wiki_Homepage). But, in my opinion, it is still not enough.

Moreover, I fear that this article might be actually an advertisement of this game - since many accounts involved in development of this article have little to no other edits - see Special:Contributions/Hirudomorsu, Special:Contributions/Cosmic_Matter, Special:Contributions/Coolbuddygames123, Special:Contributions/The_snake_and_raven, Special:Contributions/John_Chng_Guo_En and Special:Contributions/Roseylily. Marcgalrespons 14:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:N/WP:WEB. Woodroar (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with Woodroar. ⛵ Admiral Caius ⛵ 17:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm an inclusionist, so it pains me to say this, but I can't find a single review or even mention of any of the games in any reliable source. Tezero (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not seem to have any significant coverage in reliable sources. Could possibly be redirected or merged to some master list of Flash games. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Woodroar. - Turtlepump (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2014 (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.) (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Hodgkiss (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. After a search for sources it seems WP:TOOSOON applies, there is little independent reliable coverage of the subject. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So far I'm undecided. The role that never was for the Hollyoaks received a lot of visibility, but then that's really all from the Hollyoaks. The Spell did get some media attention, but she wasn't the star of that film but a side character. Other than the Hollyoaks role, she hasn't really received any media attention. There is some talk in various places about her upcoming film role in 24weekers, which is presumably a more prominent role than some of her other film bits have been. I think that if the decision here is to redirect to some part of the Hollyoaks article, we should leave the history intact so we can redirect if/when the new film releases with coverage of her role. However there might be enough here to rationalize a weak keep, as Spell was a notable enough movie and her original role in Hollyoaks was so visible. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  13:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

I am a serious Grange Hill fan and have been for a long time. Amber was in this show for 3 years and was great in the show. I would be upset if this article was taken down as i love to see what the cast are up to past and present. She was recently named as number 12 in her regional paper as influential people, for her committed work to the acting field, and id really like it if this article stayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.180.13 (talk)

She has just been cast as Margery Booth https://pro-labs.imdb.com/title/tt2128497/ opposite Amy Nuttal and Udo Kier, both great actors. She is slowly making her way up with her work and we should respect and support that. Granted not much has happened last year and we don't have much info here. but think this could be an exciting time for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesworthavenue2014 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep Notable. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Korchmar (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 have no other sources other then Mariinsky Theatre external link. Suggest deletion.--Mishae (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (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/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2014 (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/2014 January 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A look at the main list of Mariinsky orchestra personnel [30] clarifies that he is "Assistant Conductor". I found just a little about him in English, mentioning a few performances conducted by him and on occasion that he had been a teacher to another conductor. Otherwise the implication is apparently that he's Valery Gergiev's assistant. The Russian version of this article doesn't seem to have anything more.[31] On the other hand, there's his status as Honoured Artist of the Russian Federation; I don't know how much notability this conveys, although we do have several articles about this and related awards (see Meritorious Artist; People's Artist of the USSR; People's Artist of Russia) and a category for winners of this honor. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For that we at least need a primary source which will be used as a ref, otherwise we can assume that the editor made it all up.--Mishae (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep. Korchmar is now an assistant conductor, but he was once head of the Kirov (now Mariinsky) Opera, until Gergiev (who was head of the theatre), did a re-shuffle in the 1990s and made himself head of opera. See Valery Gergiev and the Kirov: a story of survival, p. 256. There is also an interview with Korchmar in a major Russian-language newspaper in Estonia [32]. Voceditenore (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Arxiloxos and Voceditenore. The sources to verify his notability are clearly out there if anyone cares to add them to the article. --Deskford (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2014 (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} 10:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wenceslao Garcia (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 person. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC) Vanjagenije (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources and lack of accomplishments meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. No sources and no credible claim of notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - Despite a search for reliable sources, I came up empty. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wavy Spice (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 person lacks wp:Notability. There are no reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. What? The Guardian is a reliable source. Can you give a better deletion rationale? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Sourcing is pretty thin and it's probably a bit too soon.. but let's see what develops and revisit in 6 months or a year. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, including The Guardian, and Paper Magazine. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per WP:BARE LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. So I'm the primary author and this was VERY hard to research. I read on a feminist website that women (and other nondominant genders, I assume) are underrepresented on Wikipedia, in terms of both writers and the pages themselves. So as a woman, I decided to add an article about a little-known Queer WoC rapper. I think that once other people start editing the article it will improve. Regardless, The Guardian and Paper Magazine are reliable sources. I agree that there are better deletion rationales to be considered. psycho_sapphire (talk) 12:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2014 (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 Eglu. ‑Scottywong| confess _ 04:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Some sources below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• BBC News - New jackets for Hens Solo and Princess Layer
• Reflective chicken jacket will protect your pet cluckers | KING5.com Seattle
• What did the chicken wear when it crossed the road? - GA Daily News

• Keep - Added Hoover's ref. If the product (eglu) they produce and sale is notable, then they are likely notable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to eglu? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that if some of the info was merged. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Eglu. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Eglu like it was before. Steven Walling • talk 03:34, 13 February 2014 (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 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J Davis (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)

Already tagged for notability - he fails WP:SOLDIER IMO, nothing really notable in his bio Gbawden (talk) 09:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have to disagree, he was a member of the BLUE ANGELS... he deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.245.245 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 February 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a member of the Blue Angels may make him more likely to pass WP:GNG, but does not cause notability to be inherited in and of itself. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable junior officer. Being a member of an aerobatic team, however prestigious or American, does not qualify one for inclusion on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I would prefer that in the future, "keep" voters express that they would like to see an article about someone rather than claim that the subject deserves it, as if this was Facebook. Chris Troutman (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While undoubtably a good soldier, a good man, and a tragic loss, Wikipedia is not a memorial, notability is not inherited from being part of the Blue Angels, and I don't see enough here to pass WP:SOLDIER or WP:NPERSON. As I mentioned above, the fact he was a Blue Angel may mean there is coverage out there, but unless that's provided... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further point out that an article on the mishap itself exists (including a picture of LCDR Davis) so it's not as if the notable incident would be forgotten if this article about Davis is deleted. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a Redirect to 2007 Blue Angels South Carolina crash might well be the appropriate outcome here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I crated this article, and I think it would be appropriate to redirect it to the article listed above. -PilotNiner Consensus reached I believe.

Consensus reached I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pilotniner (talk • contribs) 13:19, 8 February 2014 (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 Constitution Party (United States). (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Massachusetts (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)

Minor affiliate of the Constitution Party (United States) - no evidence that this affiliate is notable, should just be mentioned in parent article. Also more than slightly pov Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep Even though the article isn't sourced well I get the gut feeling that somehow this article meets the nobility guidelines.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I have removed the POV, but I doubt that this affiliate has any notability independent of the national party. Redirecting to Constitution Party (United States) seems the best solution. --Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I favor the lowest possible barriers to inclusion of articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, without regard to size or ideology. We should treat these much the way we treat high schools because this is the sort of material which SHOULD be included in a comprehensive encyclopedia. This is a state-affiliate of confirmed existence, Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES (i.e. Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia). Carrite (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - American electoral law and the American political system is based upon state level organization. State parties are federated semi-independent affiliates of a single central organization. Carrite (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let me get this straight - you think that political parties and associated people or organisations should not have to meet WP:GNG? Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Many countries have political parties that are organized along state/province/whatever lines. Should we create articles on all of those or only for US parties? Far as I can see, all these state/province/whatever affiliates have the same platform as the national parties, so I would only create an article on the affiliate if there is a special reason to do so, some event that got a lot of news coverage and had a lasting effect, or something like that. Otherwise, everything interesting can be said in the article on the national party. --Randykitty (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect to the national party. There is no viable claim to notability and no rational reason to keep a state branch of an insignificant third party as a separate stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All of the sources deal with the national party and their is no indication the state party meets WP:GNG. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2014 (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} 10:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christina DeRosa (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)

Biographical article of a subject with questionable notability. The subject has requested deletion via email to OTRS (and UTRS) and I see no reason we can't grant their wishes. v/r - TP 07:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not look especially notable based on her filmography, and I'm predisposed to honor deletion requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, clear borderline case where we should accede to the subject's wishes. ukexpat (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 18:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Messehalle, Sindelfingen (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)

Insignificant place of local interest, not of any interest except to the local community. (It isn't Madison Square Garden by a long shot). If covered in reliable sources, it would likely be exclusively local sources, and only brief mentions without substantial depth--i.e., not sufficiently notable per WP:TRIVIALMENTION. notability is not conferred merely by having a famous sing there...now if Ozzy ate the head off a small child there, perhaps. However, this entry is not notable per WP:ROTM, WP:LOCAL, WP:NLI. ColonelHenry (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are many, many less notable music venues on Wikipedia. For example Messehalle, Innsbruck. An exhibition hall of this size and with such famous artists is definitely notable without any doubt. Evangp (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

furthermore it just needs a little touching up by someone with more knowledge of the venue Evangp (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That argument is rather specious...See Wikipedia:Other stuff exists

good point, but still this is without a doubt notable Evangp (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let AfD sort out the wheat from the chaff. I say chaff, You say wheat. abide by the decision and wisdom of the crowd, whether they keep or get rid of this chaff.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A stadium with 3000 people and major acts is notable. (obviously, the fact that we have some smaller that are smaller is not by itself a reason to keep this one--it's not just a matter of size, & anyway, we're not known for consistency.) I'm, a strong critic of including too much local material, but this size is more than local--at 300 I'd say delete. I suppose material could be found about the construction and financing so on, if GNG really mattered--but we could do that at 300 also, if the public paid for it. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arguing that a concert hall that hosted The Who is not Madison Square Garden is analogous to arguing that Millard Fillmore is clearly not Abraham Lincoln, so we ought to delete Fillmore's biography. I don't buy that line of reasoning. Less notable topics and more notable topics are all . . . . notable, and deserving of Wikipedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2014 (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. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 04:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palayathu Vayal Govt. UP School (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)

Originally PROD'd w/ rationale: "Non-notable elementary school (as far as I can tell). See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES". PROD declined by author, edit summary "Removing Deletion proposal as it is not applicable and not under the purview of the deletion policy. The School has achieved quite some notability in the region." Original rationale stands. Ansh666 04:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems that Notability is often defined and discussed from an American geographical point of view. It is highly condemnable to apply the same principles of general notability (as derived from scenarios of well developed societies) to entities elsewhere. Kerala has hundreds of thousands of schools but this one has very notable special features as you may read in the article, especially the rare initiatives by children (with guidance from teachers) to start up a post office, museum, broadcasting centre and farm. Hence the notability. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 04:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to an article about educational institutions of the region. Our accepted standards on the notability of educational institutions ought to be applied equally worldwide. I have consistently advocated keeping articles about Indian secondary schools and colleges. This sounds like a very fine school trying some innovative teaching techniques. However, our broadly accepted consensus is that individual primary schools are not notable except for those of exceptional architectural or historical significance. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we are looking at the article, first as categorized into schools and then its notability among the class of schools. Definitely, it happens to be a school, but the features that makes it notable (its remoteness and yet innovative missions) are completely distinct. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 05:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But a school can be considered as a stand-alone organisation, regardless of its status as an educational institution - that's what we have WP:ORG (and within it, WP:ORGDEPTH) for. I would think that even within that guideline there would be some room to move for most editors in terms of the sort of coverage we would accept as being sufficient to meet those requirements. But I can't see this organisation/institution coming close without more coverage. I'm sure they do wonderful things and we're not here to judge the "value" of organisations and schools to their students or local communities. But hard work and innovation are not necessarily notable. Stalwart111 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia's definition of notable differs from the "normal" (dictionary) definition of notable. I'm sure it's quite notable by ordinary standards, but we don't follow those around here, unfortunately. Ansh666 06:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per commentary above. Stalwart111 06:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - IMHO, Individual schools are inherently encyclopedic. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES , Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -- Tinu Cherian - 14:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only applies to secondary schools, not primary schools, as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES clearly says. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It gives a devastating feeling and chill to see how articles are considered and classified by the "levels" (primary, secondary etc.) of a school!" Are we all still working in Wikipedia!? ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 16:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. If a primary school is notable then it will be kept. But most aren't. All secondary schools, on the other hand, which tend to be much larger, are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability get merged or redirected in AfD". Please see the word "most", not all primary schoodl are non-notable. Also, the rule that just being a primary school means inherently non-notable and a secondary school being inherently notable comes handy at times, but is not a law of nature; you don't need to follow them blindly. This particular case, the article provides info, based on the reference provide, that establishes its uncommonness and hence notability. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, note that Wikipedia's definition of notable differs from the "normal" (dictionary) definition of notable. Ansh666 20:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article " This article has provided a reliable source (in the regional language); that source is a newspaper article about certain aspects of this school. The newspaper is Mathrubhumi, a state-wide newspaper (as opposed to a self-published or very limited-circulation periodicals). That establishes Wikipedia's definition of notable.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "significant coverage in reliable sources" - plural. At least more than one. That has been the issue here from the start - one source is generally not sufficient for notability via WP:GNG which requires multiple sources. Find more sources and it'll be a different story. Stalwart111 20:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GNG does not require multiple sources. It says "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". So, multiple sources is the general expectation. However, that does not mean you can delete an article with a single good quality newpsaper reference just because it does not have two references. That said, I'd definitely request editors with Malayalam knowledge to try to find out more references in that language, just so that WP:GNG "expectation" (not rule) is met.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes, but multiple sources is the general rule, as is WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Neither are policy or even guidelines, but they're generally followed anyways. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, now (this version), the main author of the article has added two more citations. One citation features a TV program highlighting this school's achievements, and in which eminent education experts interview some teachers and students of the school (as explained below by the editor VishwaPrabha). Another reference is from a book (offline). Now, the article meets the "expectation" of more than one references. So, I reiterate my keep vote.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the arcle about its locality - which is the standard procedure per long-standing precedent documented at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all redlinks - see the first line or two of the article. Ansh666 02:45, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Primary schools are non-notable but secondary schools are notable, as a rule! Really sounds like "racism" between school levels. The point is any school which is notable should be kept & that which is not shouldn't. AshLin (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism? That's a new one! What instances of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources make this notable enough to be kept then? I can only urge the closing admin to ignore all the WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Stalwart111 13:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racism?! The reason is that primary schools tend to be small, insignificant and not to have a massive impact on one's future life. Whereas secondary schools tend to be large, occupy significant real estate and have a very large impact on one's future life, since one is at the school in the years when one matures, grows into an adult and decides one's future career path. Most villages have at least one primary school, whereas secondary schools tend to only be found in significant population centres, where they are often major landmarks. Some primary schools clearly are notable, but they don't have the presumption of notability that secondary schools have. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

occupy significant real estate and have a very large impact on one's future life, since one is at the school in the years when one matures, grows into an adult and decides one's future career path. That very point is a POV on the pedagogical stands! For one, I believe I was made upto what I am today all by the first, humble simple rural school, where I was lucky enough to be educated. It may not look big by any standards you may apply, but I got qualified to study in all those prestigious higher educational institutions only subsequent as a result of my 'great training' I got in that little school. How do you even suggest that a school should be 'large' enough by its real estate assets to be notable! Are we pondering upon them as the great oceans or rocks of the world? If you have got any idea that men/women are made into what they are, when they reach puberty or adolescence, I must tell that you are completely misguided about the development of human intelligence and life. Again, let me plead you all to look at the case with a global perspective. Not just the western way of classifying size and real estate gravity. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 18:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that has nothing to do with WP:N and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - all this debate has shown is that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, like most policies and guidelines, can be twisted in many many ways, sometimes in direct contradiction with others. Of course, any attempt to "reform" it will become bogged down in bureaucracy and fail, but something to keep in mind. ₆an⁶sh₆ 20:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC) (P.S. any comments, questions, complaints, or suggestions about the new sig are welcome on my talk page.)[reply]

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is neither a policy nor a guideline. For want of a designation it's classed as an essay, but it simply does what its name implies; it documents common outcomes that have been established through long-standing precedent. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know (syntactic ambiguity, sorry); see my comment at the end of Dwaipayan's !vote for evidence on that. Still doesn't stop it from being commonly used as one, though. ₆an⁶sh₆ 18:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Apparently not-notable. Elementary school! Contain tons of WP:OR. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you assume any WP:ORand non-notability, you are also invited to refer to this commons category and the descriptions of an important Wikimedia community event/project based at this very school. Lack of strong citations from media and publications in English and other international languages does not necessarily imply OR in the case of articles on regions of less privileged/empowered societies. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 11:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more citations to the article. One among them is a video recording at Youtube.com where you can see the school featured with its students and teachers being interviewed by eminent educational experts such as Dr. B S Warrier, Dr. RVG Menon, acclaimed Malayalam Writer KR Meera etc. Though in Malayalam, the program includes discussions about the challenges faced bythe inmates of the school from wild elephants and other local natural hazards, transportation accessibility to the school from both the outside world and from the homes of students, the various extra-curricular clubs and activities ofthe school, a commendably high involvement rate of 70% students in regional school sports competitions, the school's indigenous music and poetry initiatives, theeir efforts to preserve the herbal medical wisdom and related flora and fauna etc.

By now, as a creator of this article, I feel quite frustrated and sad. I have been reading, editing and evangelising Wikimedia projects for more than 10 years now. In fact, I have dedicated my life for the cause of Wikimedia projects in recent years. Yet, these days, I rarely edit any English Wikipedia articles fearing its wastefulness.

The Wikipedia has been effectively taken over by over-zealous deletion maniacs. Deleting articles for want of 'Notability' and 'citation' is much more easy than creating ones for which there are serious constraints (such as lack of third party citations. Unlike USA or Europe or Australia, most parts of world where the majority of mankind lives, we just do not have an environment where such third party references exists readily. Yet, it is only a matter of time that they may also catch up.

In the first look, the 'Deletion Maniacs' may appear to be 'saviors of Wikipedians'. They might show you a lot of big numbers in their edit statistics. The adrenalin that gets pumped into their body after having achieved the complete burial of somebody else's sincere, non-biased and meaningful work may be quite satisfying. But I fear that, it is this very culture that will eventually kill the concept of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was meant to be a 'universal source of knowledge'. But thanks to the 'regulation army', by now, we have deviated a lot from the original concept of 'gathering every bit of knowledge ever aquired by the human race'. Although it may look like a clean job to purify the Wikipedia, the idea of caging every article within some rules and dogmas formed by a set of people who are trained and accustomed with highly prejudiced view points, is actually killing Wikipedia in other languages and communities.

The fact is that consideration of 'notability' and selection of citations is a matter of high wisdom on a subject. Many often, it is not the job of edit desk clerks like most of us who are merely more expert on editing wikipedia than on a subject of the article. If at all any new user dares to start creating or editing an article, you can just turn them off for ever by this attitude. After all, they would care for at least their own valuable time that shouldn't be wasted in such unworthy discussions.

As for one, I still feel sorry for having first took the efforts to write another article in English Wikipedia and then after an year, during a very busy time, to spend yet another week fighting and arguing against a 'very casual' but fatal deletion suggestion. It only shows that creating an article and ensuring that it stays for ever is a life-long responsibility. There is always this Democles sword hanging above your article, no matter how much sincere and encyclopedic energy you may have put into it in good old times. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can march ahead and smash through your painful work. I should have been doing something much more worthwhile for the Wikipedia (or even more useful something else - but what!?) at large. :(

I never thought categorization of articles into some meaningful realms would have a bad effect on the life of the article itself. But now I realize, if you want to delete a rather independent article, first put it into a category (like Schools) and then treat it as one among those 'worthless' lots. It's easy then!

To those who still think such articles should be deleted, "you can go ahead". Just clean up the Wikipedia into a 250 page highly authentic pulp encyclopedia!. Best wishes but with no thanks. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭ^talk 07:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are hundred-thousand primary schools in Kerala. There should be some reason behind an article being came up in Wikipedia on a particular school. This school is in a remote village, literally inside a forest where there is no modern amenities enjoyed by other public or Government schools. Still they are standing out with many reasons stated in the article. All of the matter written in the article are with ample references appeared in prominent media too. While most of the schools in the tribal areas in India are running for the sake of functioning, this one school where most of the students are from some local tribes whose parents have not even had the basic education are making the kids of the town schools where all the things are at their call, putting to shame. It is heartening to note that this article has been marked for deletion. --Vinayaraj (talk) 14:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, typically I'd argue that 99.9% of primary schools are not notable and should not have articles. However, this case seems unusual in that there appears to be feature articles and television documentaries on the subject, which would appear to indicate it meets the WP:GNG. I don't speak the language, so I don't know how substantial these are (hence the 'weak'), but I think we can give this one the benefit of the doubt. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krzysztof Chorzelski (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)

insufficient notability per WP:MUSICBIO ColonelHenry (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We need 3rd party refs to show it, but the article specifies he recorded for the major classical labels, and thtasome of the recordings won awards. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly meets GNG. I added a bunch of newspaper sources to the article and cleaned it up. I haven't even touched classical music magazines and more specialist sources yet, so there's more, but what's now there is enough.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Which part of WP:MUSICBIO or any other applicable policy does he meet? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant policy is WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – as noted above and in the article, he satisfies WP:MUSICBIO because a) of his membership in a notable ensemble with 2 or more notable members; b) publishing recordings on major labels and c) winning major awards for them; d) he is also a professor at a major teaching institution. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, User:Michael Bednarek, for detailed explanation. I have withdrawn my vote accordingly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 14 February 2014 (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. Noting that the article text was also a copyvio and thus also eligible for CSD G12 deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonhwado (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 was put up for speedy, under the argument that it copied text from a website allegedly owned by the owner of that website Talk:Wonhwado (which would mean a COI)

Apparently, this article existed in 2009, but must have been deleted, but I can't find the AFD. The 2009 article is copied here: [33]

Does not seem to meet the WP:GNG. ColonelHenry (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you would like to delete information about one of martial arts from Wikipedia? There are a lot web pages with information about this art. Where is the real problem? -- Jaro 23:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.166.91 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On notability grounds. The article is unreferenced but associated web sites give no indication of notability. It seems to have some connection to the Unification Church (Moonies) but even that is not perfectly clear.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unsourced article with no indication of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it There are a lot of video on youtube about WonHwaDo (e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukxE8t2ICSM or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO_dqJormp4&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL260116D15BDCECC1). In terms of connection with Unification Church (UC) it somehow similar like Aikido connection with Oomoto new Japanese religion. Both was members of some new religion movement, both created martial art. Han Bong Ki (founder of WonHwaDo) didn't want to connect WonHwaDo with UC and because of that he didn't get UC support for WHD. Some of WHD masters, some as Han Bong Ki are members of UC, but Unification Church officially support and control other martial art [Tongil Moo Do], WonHwaDo is developed independently. -- Jaro, 20:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Youtube are not references. Article remains unsourced.Peter Rehse (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delte I agree with the above statements to get rid of the page as there are no reference to back up all the claims. Thus questioning its notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Meatsgains, could you explain what do you mean about "back up all the claims"? Also what should people add to Wikipedia to prove notability? How many people in how many countries should study some martial art to get enough notability? WonHwaDo stydy thousands people around the world. WonHwaDo is mentioned in many Martial Art encyclopedias, there was TV programs about WonHwaDo in Korea and Europe (you can find some on Youtube, one link I have added in my previous comment). Why to delete, better say what kind of information should be added to the article to prove notability and solve other issues. -- Jaro, 07:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.63.166.91 (talk)

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. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 04:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Britton (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)

Breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (NPOV/V/NOR). TigerRag86 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2014 (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/2014 February 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The reasons the nominator listed for deletion can be fixed without deleting the article. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 02:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - he, "was influential in establishing the legal framework that ushered in the late 20th century Internet boom in ... Silicon Valley". Oh thank you, father of the internet! Yes, massive (and completely unsourced) claims like that can be fixed with editing but a lack of notability can't. If he really is what the article claims he is (some sort of Alan Shore/Steve Jobs super-hybrid) then coverage should be... abundant. The biggest claims are the least sourced and those sources that have been provided aren't very strong. I couldn't find much beyond blogs, e-zines and local papers and I certainly couldn't find anything to support some of the... more creative... claims in the article. I don't think his role as Adjunct Professor at the University of South Florida is enough to substantiate a pass against WP:PROF either. Stalwart111 06:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was the original author of this and a number of other articles about people and things from the early days of the web, a topic that was and remains somewhat underrepresented on Wikipedia. I haven't watched the article too closely and clearly there is some stuff here that reads more like a book dust jacket than an encyclopedia. Per the mocking comment above, indeed, Britton was one of the first "Internet lawyers" at a time when there were very few, and ran with the crowd they used to call the Digerati. This is sourced, I believe, to an article in the Gulf Coast Business Review, which is now a dead link. There are indeed plenty of reliable third party sources to establish verifiability — he's a real person and the cited facts appear to be true. Another link not in the article, an introductory paragraph to a statement from him in a book on marketing,[34] which the author also discusses in a blog.[35] This looks to be a case of significant coverage in minor publications. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "influential in establishing the legal framework that ushered in the late 20th century Internet boom"
• "only Media Lab alumnus to become a lawyer."
• "Britton is recognized as an expert in laws relating to social media and online communities"

All unsourced claims but they are arguably among the biggest claims to notability in the article. There's a suggestion that he is a, "prominent voice for startups" but if you look at the corresponding source it says the author of the piece considers him a, "prominent voice in the area startup community" (Tampa Bay) which the article also laments is a very small group of people. This is a local solicitor who likes to talk about himself and so has shoe-horned himself into a couple of local articles and maybe a book (which is effectively coverage of his own coverage of himself anyway and looks to be self-published). I really don't think there is enough significant coverage to warrant keeping this but if it is kept, it needs to be cut right back to the 2-3 lines that can be sourced to independent reliable sources. Stalwart111 20:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. 2 is a factual claim that would have to be verified. #3 is an honorific, and generally not encyclopedic (though if it is strictly true and related to notability it might stand). #1 is a summary statement for the lede, and if the article stands then the lede should summarize whatever sourced content remains in the article. I think we're in agreement on all that, but perhaps differ on which side of notability this falls on. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's exactly right and most of my commentary relates to stuff that could be fixed if the article were kept. I suppose my point is that it might have started as a technical stub relating to someone who played a role in the early days of the internet but it has since been bastardized into promo-spam by the subject's dedication to "brand Britton". There's nothing really wrong with that either and I don't think it's bad-faith but it does present us with problems when it comes to AFD. There's not much to verify the general technical claims, nothing to verify the bigger claims and bits here and there to verify his quasi-notability as someone known within his local community (which any go-getting, tech-savvy lawyer might have). That generally wouldn't be enough to establish notability. If we can verify any of the Silicon Valley stuff (not just that he was there but someone else saying he made a contribution) then per WP:ANYBIO #2 I'd be all for keeping it. Coverage then becomes inconsequential. Stalwart111 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, he may have had a role in the early days of the internet, but it looks like a minor one. Probably a nice guy and good at his job, but I don't agree that the sources provided are substantial enough to push Britton over the WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:51, 16 February 2014 (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.