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. There is consensus that the article consisting of current material would be not notable; it is likely that an article with the same name but different content can exist.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• The article has had notability and essay tags on it since July 2011.
• The one reference available on line does not say anything about innovative systems.
• A web search for "innovative system" has many hits, but none near the top (except for this Wikipedia article) seem to relate to what this article is talking about. A web search for "innovative systems" and "World Bank Institute" together don't seem to lead to anything related to this article.
• The primary author, User:ScrollRaider, describes http://www.mcqube.com/ as their home page. That page uses the phrase innovative system in a way that seems unique to that company.
• The article references quantum mechanics in a way that doesn't seem to have anything to do with my very limited understanding of quantum mechanics.

I think this is one specific use of the phrase innovative system used by one company that has become an encyclopedia article, but shouldn't have. SchreiberBike talk 00:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The Newell book referenced in the article doesn't use the phrase either (so far as I was able to find searching both Google Books and the Amazon.com "look inside" feature), which makes this WP:SYNTH. bd2412 T 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• 'comment I removed the prod because I thought it needed discussion, not because I thought we should necessarily keep the article. The reference referred to make rather strong claims for its importance, but to back this up there would need to be evidencethat the world back uses the term in the same manner DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or of there is no consensus to delete, re-title due to the appropriation of a common plainly-understood English phrase to mean something very technical. In plain English, an "innovative system" is a system that is innovative (duh!). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:09, 22 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 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 07:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unreadable essay that does little more than elaborate on a dictionary defimition. Lots of poorly-assembled long words adding up to nothing.TheLongTone (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Are we sure this was not created using corporate bullshit generator? No such user (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know about corporate BS, but it seems to be generating Wikipedia SNOW. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:58, 23 January 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. Wizardman 05:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Zaman (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 is a clear promo WP:SPAM with all major edits coming from two WP:SPA accounts. Many sources are weak and others appear dicey with pronounced bias. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Ad Orientem claimed, it is evident that the page reads like an advertisement and the page creator wanted just that. Also, the sources used are incredibly weak. If someone were to take the time to go through and properly translate the whole page, remove all the promotional claims, and add reliable sources, I would support a keep. Otherwise, Asad Zamam doesn't even hold notability. Gooluck finding sources on him! Meatsgains (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Redirecting to Hijrat (film) would be the best outcome for now. He's mentioned there and his modeling and television work can be noted there briefly. I don't think he's notable enough for an independent article at this point in time (too soon). Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and move references to the film because of the subject's lack of notability. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 11:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of true notability. Doesn't rate a redirect. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 03:38, 2 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 Nerd. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blerd (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)

Subject is asserted to be a slang term with definition and etymology. No credible claim is made of notability WP:N per WP:GNG in either the article or its weak sourcing. Article also runs afoul of Not a Dictionary WP:NAD. Article was previously nominated PROD. Tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Nerd. Although this term does seem to be getting a small amount of coverage, it's not really at the point where I'd feel comfortable with saying that it satisfies WP:NEO. At this time, not much more than a dictionary definition is possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree Article has zero notability and no WP:RS sources. See also WP:ANS. There is nothing here worth salvaging. It smells like an attempt to increase the term's usage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a few: CNN, NPR, and NBC. In another year or two, The New York Times will probably discover it. However, until then, it I think this belongs as a paragraph in Nerd, as it's still emerging and none of the few reliable sources I've found present it as anything other than a quirky neologism that lacks mainstream acceptance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conceding that there are some sources (nice finds) I still think it lacks N and fails NAD. But I've tagged it for merging as you suggest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - Not notable enough to stand it it's own; might merit a sentence or two in Nerd. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:59, 22 January 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) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Tribe Called Red (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)

Self-released music on the internet, no record label, does not qualify for WP:N / WP:BAND per my understanding of notability Львівське (говорити) 21:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you may or may not have noticed, the very first criterion in WP:BAND is has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself — which, as written, this article already demonstrates with numerous sources. While the article could certainly use some updating to actually reflect this properly, they also pass criterion #4 (has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country); as written, the article already properly demonstrates that they pass criterion #8 as well (has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award) by virtue of two Polaris Music Prize nominations. In addition, CBC Radio has put them past criteria #11 (has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network) and #12 (has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network). Releasing music on a major record label is certainly one way that a band can attain notability, but it's far from the only way; "major label release" is one criterion among several at WP:BAND, and a band that successfully passes several of the other criteria is not automatically non-notable just because the music was self-released. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Clearly meets at least the first and eighth points of WP:MUSICBIO as explained by Bearcat. Also meets the WP:GNG due to having received enough independent coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 00:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I didn't know what constituted trivial. I figured trivial was "some PR writeabout about a local band" and notable would be, a writeup of in the news concerning relevancy. --Львівське (говорити) 00:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added improved sourcing for the concert tours and the radio broadcasts as well. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per fixes to sources. I am not related to User:Bearcat, as far as I know. Bearian (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Shortlisted for the Polaris Music Prize, plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 08:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Awards, and clearly meets GNG -- I have seen two segments on the Canadian national news show The National; one exclusively on the band and the other that featured them and an Inuit singer talking about how native music is reaching the mainstream. Did nominator do WP:BEFORE? To answer nominator's question as to trivial: trivial is when you look at an article to determine if a subject is notable rather than researching and tagging the article with refimprove or similar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bearian and Passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Tnarduzzi (talk) 23:28, 27 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White2 (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)

Couldn't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

allmusic & pitchfork reviews are in the article as nominated, tho one URL has now changed [1]. Have another look & consider withdrawing the nom. 78.19.9.121 (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per multiple reviews (Allmusic & Pitchfork); enough to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 19:41, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, given how both last.fm and Rate Your Music show significant listener engagement, even though it if it has considerably less listens/ratings than their posterior work. The article itself seems well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.190.31.213 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the reviews at AMG and Pitchfork are enough to kick this over the WP:GNG in my opinion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:19, 29 January 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.  Sandstein  20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hxxp (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 a real technology; belongs in Wiktionary, not here � (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not convinced it belongs on Wiktionary, either. Apparently, people sometimes use it on web forums, but it is not attested by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A redirect to Hypertext Transfer Protocol would be the obvious choice, but I can't find even one reliable source discussing "hxxp" in order to mention it in the target article in a non-WP:OR way, so delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:43, 22 January 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. Users are free to recreate or move in the draft article. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following has been left at the talk page. Notice that I merely repost it here and have no opinion on the notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Possible advertisement campaign WP:BIO and/or self-promotion material originally posted by a member of the organization under debate. WP:COI Article features ad copy lifted directly from the organizations website. WP:COPYVIO No independent references to verify claims or official associations found. There are indeed several published articles archived on newsfeeds, but they are sourced directly from the organization. WP:ORG There is small collection of possibly independent web articles but they do not seem to provide very strong actual references. WP:NOT Attempts to verify the references were made after noticing the organization or assumed representative(s) having placed direct external backlinks to "at-risk" propaganda on multiple unrelated pages about specifc herbs. The pages which are linked to request donations and membership subscriptions upwards of $1000. All pages on the site link directly to a store to buy a selection of premium priced books and various other commercial merchandise. WP:ADV 67.230.141.161 (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Replace. Delete due to the reasons of the nomination (well done rationale). Replace with Draft:United Plant Savers which I just wrote clear of copyvio, advertising, etc.. there are more sources if requested to meet notability. -- GreenC 21:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To clarify, since no copyvio has been discovered (see thread below), it is probably best to retain the article history, but still replace the content with the Draft copy which is fully sourced and free of COI (which has been established). If sourcing for current content can be found it can be re-added later. -- GreenC 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Replace with Green Cardamom's rewritten stub. The new stub addresses the copyvio and COI concerns and demonstrates notability through multiple reliable sources for basic facts about the organization. I am more neutral on deletion of the history, but if copyvio concerns force it, I am fine with it. Thanks, GreenC! --Mark viking (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace with the draft composed by User:Green Cardamom at Draft:United Plant Savers. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose deletion of article history. The is approaching its 7th birthday on Wikipedia. No objection to wholesale trimming and improvement. I don't see any reason why the history should be lost. If Greencardamom wants to paste his version over this one I say go for it. No need for deletion. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's 6 some years old but almost entirely a copy-paste job by one person in 2007. The later edits are mostly minor and probably wouldn't need preservation in light of the wholesale copyvio. -- GreenC 07:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the website and I didn't see the content in the Wikipedia article. Do we know what the website looked like 7 years ago and that the content was taken from there? If so then the article should be deleted as a copyvio. If not the history should be preserved. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Website from 2007 (Wayback Machine). I don't see a copyvio do you? I assumed the nominator was correct but maybe not. The COI is correct, Karen Vaughan's page at UPS. But that just means we need to add sources to establish notability and delete any problems with overt advertising and NPOV. So.. unless a copyvio can be established I may change my vote to plain Keep and integrate the sources currently in the Draft copy. -- GreenC 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified recommendation above not to delete the history. -- GreenC 18:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If there were a copyvio it would need to be removed or the article deleted. But I'm not aware of any evidence that there is one. In which case I'd like to see the history preserved. Glad you agree. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and replace with Green Cardamom's stub. I'll go along with the consensus here; it seems like a good solution to me. Losing a copyright violation and its history is hardly something that worries me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:47, 22 January 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. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

It is not particularly clear what this article is about. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possible speedy (either A10 or copypaste), as much of it appears to be cut and pasted from the lead of Administration of Hyderabad. Cnilep (talk) 04:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Agree with the comment "It is not particularly clear what this article is about.".Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:27, 26 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article reads as a promo for the show. There are no references nor is there any assertion of notability. Additionally, online searches turned up no information, save YouTube clips of the show. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 18:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per G11. This one is a no brainer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing but a unsourced spam fest.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:12, 21 January 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.  Sandstein  20:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Galaxy S5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:CRYSTAL ViperSnake151  Talk  16:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep IS well sources and the phone is confirmed not a group of speculations or Original research.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 17:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I almost laughed seeing this was on AfD. I think it is definitely noteworthy enough to keep. Leoesb1032 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the information in this article is speculative and predictive. It is not confirmed unless Samsung announces it; it might not even be called the S5. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:Notability, many sources are talking about it, even if it is vapourware it has good sourcing. This interview "...around March and April,...,” Lee (Young Hee) said. “When we release our S5...." establishes the name S5 Martin451 19:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there a reason why we can't just wait for the product to be formally announced? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The phone is just a concept! Even if it isn't fake, it hasn't been released yet. Helixsoft (Talk|Contributions|Templates|Userboxes) 20:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We all know it is coming so eventually the page will have to be re-added. And if there are enough sources. But I am not aware of Wiki policy in this matter.--Inayity (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PRODUCT covers this pretty well and advises against creating such stubs. (Search for "Explosive Space Modulator" in there.) Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • An CRYSTAL does say: short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I find this article premature as it doesn't really say anything significant... The announcement of a successor's release date without any other details could well fit in the previous gen article. Having said that, I suspect we will have an article on this at some point, so it's not terribly important what happens in the mean time, but I'd !vote for a merge & redirect to a section in Samsung Galaxy (the product line article), until more info emerges about this one. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I should note that someone deleted a fair chunk of sourced content from the article during the AfD [2], which is probably bad form. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This page meets notability, however with the product haven't being released yet, this is WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL, with the intro being like some sort of promotional, so possible merge and redirect could be in views. ///EuroCarGT 02:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL if no announcement whatsoever has been made, but it clearly has been. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 03:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speculation and rumor do not confer notability. The latest source added cites "an unnamed source" who could very well be the janitor. The article is WP:TOOSOON and violates WP:CRYSTAL by relying on speculation and rumor – which are specifically disallowed, even from reliable sources. Once the official specs are released, then we'll have something to write about. Guesswork is not encyclopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if I'm that far in the minority, then I'll strike my vote and go back to grumbling. It looks like this is heading toward a snow keep, so I won't stand in the way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be speculation saying the unnamed source "could be a janitor"? There is nothing in the source that indicates speculation. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-sourced, plus Samgsung has already released information about the phone. Zhaofeng Li [talk... contribs...] 09:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Samsung Galaxy S series and create a new section. Eyesnore (pc) 02:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a second AfD has been opened and closed WP:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S5 (2nd nomination) whilst this one is still open. Martin451 16:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the phone's existence has been confirmed by a fairly senior Samsung executive. As such, WP:CRYSTAL is not accurate or relevant here, and there is a lot of pre-launch coverage; some is rumour, some is coverage of the announcement. User:NinjaRobotPirate clearly hasn't read the Bloomberg source here. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:41, 28 January 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) 00:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rowe (director) (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)

Delete, I'm not really seeing a lot of coverage to show this gentlemen meets the GNG for creative professionals. Although the name is common so that may be clouding things a bit, opening a discussion on this person as to whether they do indeed meet the requirements of notability. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing much claim to notability other than the Camera d'Or award, which has no references, and the film itself has no article. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rotten Tomatoes[3] lists numerous reviews many from well-known sources[4][5][6][7] for Leap Year (Año bisiesto), suggesting it's notable even if it doesn't have an article. This article needs revision to remove promotional tone, as well as copy editing, but Rowe meets WP:CREATIVE #3. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Colapeninsula. Many reviews of Leap Year, here's one for his new film The Well (his "much-anticipated follow-up to his Camera d’Or winner") [8], and here's substantial coverage of his Camera D'or win [9][10] --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Award winning film director. He and his work have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep = plenty of sources are available to prove he passes WP:CREATIVE. Many (but not most) directors of films are notable, while producers are usually not, even if they are involved in the same film projects. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think this will probably end up being a keep. feel free to close Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:36, 22 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanovic–S. Williams match at the 2014 Australian Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unnotable in any historical context. Being the most talked about on Twitter does not merit a page. Disability expert (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed - Twitter "traffic" isn't listed as a criterion for passing WP:Notability. Mayumashu (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Its confirmed as notable right now, social media is accessible like Twitter and other news pages. The most one is the longest tennis match in recorded history is much notable.

Changed to snow delete and the event isn't much meet WP:NOT#NEWS. ApprenticeFan ^work 09:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fourth-round matches don't get a Wikipedia page, no matter how many tweets they may have generated. This match was an upset, nothing more. Its quality was unremarkable at best (as the statistics show) and the match hasn't had any sort impact on the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasJz (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References are strong, and the Twitter coverage is not the only claim to notability. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upsets in sports happen all the time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." All coverage of this event is routine and will likely not persist over a period of time.Sxg169 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sxg169. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - every professional level sports match will have twitter traffic and will be reported in the media enough to create some references. Wikipedia is not an archive and as Sxg169 said, the coverage of this event is routine and not persisting. Pi (Talk to me! ) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per sxg169, coverage of this game will not persist. Especially as Ivanovic lost her next match anyways. Karl 334 ^{Talk--Contribs} 21:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - perhaps merging the details of this match into the 2014 Australian Open page could be sufficient enough. MasterMind5991 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - not at all notable in comparison to any of the other matches in the 2014 Australian Open - if truly of interest then it should be added to a Williams/Ivanovic rivalry page or section on their individual pages.Avimonster (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sufficient coverage in 2014 Australian Open.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Why does it need it's own page, I really don't get it. Dencod16 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already covered in 2014_Australian_Open#Ana_Ivanovic_upsets_Serena_Williams. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable.--Wolbo (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I agree with previous two judgements. Ben^Yes? 01:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete I came across this page because of the "(details)" link on the 2014 AO Women's Singles page. I thought, "Wow, what crazy thing happened in this match that merits its own article?" and I discover the answers amounts to, "Ivanovic won!" The "Significance" section seems like a preemptive strike against the AfD, I think the creator knew it was (rightly) coming. Mreleganza (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this match has a page, why doesn't every other upset of the No. 1 ranked player have one as well? E.g. Lisicki - Williams, Stephens - Williams. A short reference to it is enough in 2014_Australian_Open#Ana_Ivanovic_upsets_Serena_Williams.Popsiclesare (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Someone who wrote it surely has big sense of humour. No.14 won against No.1 - and is that notable event? Biggest joke of Wikipedia Tennis history. TheLightBlue (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete only bunch of quotation and synthesis of its significance. That would also be recenitsm. It isnothing like the Isner-Mahut gameLihaas (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Nonsense. Top seeds lose in slams all the time. There can be notable early-round matches (Isner-Mahut is the obvious example), but this isn't one of them. People arguing for twitter notability: what will this match have left once we get to Roland Garros in May and some other match gets tweeted about even more? Nothing. —Ed Cormany (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no lasting notability at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upset wins happen often due to conditions, weather or the top seeds physical fitness (or lack thereof) in a game. No.14 winning against No.1 isn't a big surprise anyway and shouldn't be a big upset but if an unranked player beat the top seed in a game, is Wikipedia going to have an article on each and every such result? The result would not be nice to see with lots of stray articles here and there linked to a certain player's career. --Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is just a normal upset in the course of tennis history. Nothing notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 27 January 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. Some of the delete comments point out that routine coverage doesn't typically contribute towards meeting the GNG, but later comments provide substantial independent coverage, so I have discounted these. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

George Johnson (boxer) (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 non-notable boxer. Lost to some interesting people but WP:NOTINHERIT Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added some sourcing, his long career provided press coverage of his notable fights. It does appear he was inducted into the California Boxing Hall of Fame in 2005 though I'm looking for a better cite for that fact. I also see one book says he got an "Award of Merit" from the World Boxing Hall of Fame in 2002.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Most of the coverage is routine sports reporting and if losing most of your fights is enough to get you into the California boxing hall of fame, it's not very selective. Fighting notable fighters falls under WP:NOTINHERITED. Mdtemp (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOX is irrelevant if someone meets WP:GNG. A fair amount of the coverage I have added (the article had NONE when sent to AfD) is about Johnson, thus I was able to flesh out some of his history. He's notable for his longtime durability and ability to match up with numerous top fighters, which is why he got a fair amount of coverage. He's cited fondly in books and all sorts of places. Compared to old baseball players articles which litter this project, and, nay, even current professional sportsmen of all stripes whose articles dally as mere stubs forever with one bare citation to some sporting records site, Johnson far outshines them in terms of notability. I wouldn't saythe California Boxing Hall of Fame entry by itself is sufficient, but dismissing it as meaningless is unwise.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has been improved to the point where my initial comment has less relevance. Still think it should go through the process (i.e.. not withdrawing it) but the sources go a long way to meeting WP:GNG.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As he faced so many noteworthy opponents (by my count, 13 fights against men who held, or fought for, the World Heavyweight Title, and ~5 others who held a top 10 ranking) thats enough to make his career, and hence him, notable imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. GNG is not met by routine sports coverage of his 50 fights--of course there would be coverage of them, especially if he's fighting notable opponents, but that doesn't mean there's significant independent coverage of him. It's clearly established that martial arts halls of fame do not signify notability (and boxing is a martial art) and notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters since notability is not inherited.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WTF does NBOX have to do with anything? I've never participated in a boxer AfD before, I must say, I wrote Jacob Hyer, and that's about it. Johnson was profiled in articles like this [11] because he was a notable fighter. These aren't just two sentence AP entries. How is Wikipedia improved by not including coverage of this important and well-remembered figure in mid 20th century boxing? Boxing is not *just* a martial art, it was one of the most popular sports in the United States for a long long period, its more recent decline a la baseball notwithstanding. I wouldn't have spent time improving this article if I seriously didn't think Johnson was notable and the article simply needed some TLC.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NBOX is a guideline and not meeting it does not mean an article should be deleted. Numerous well-known boxers, such as Ted Lowry, Elmer Ray or Bob Satterfield do not meet it. I also don't agree with invoking WP:NOTINHERITED here. Most notable boxers are so because of fights against other notable boxers. Johnson was a well known heavyweight journeyman of the 60s and 70s, had 54 pro bouts, about a third of which were against boxers from the sport's top echelon. Boxing scribes like Jim Amato have written articles about him.[12] He participated in televised bouts and received ample newspaper coverage. A google search for him turns up 266,000 matches [13]. A search of the google news archive gives 230 results. How much coverage do people require? This seems very stringent since Muhammad Ali's mom has survived two deletion discussions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sittingonacornflake (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said fighters (of any type) become notable by winning (or at least fighting for) titles. There's a lot of fighters who fought a number of good fighters, but they were just there to pad the record of the better fighters. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems like a good fighter who fought the bestCrazyAces489 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I hate to step into the middle of this (I feel like a ref between two free swinging brawlers), but this shouldn't be hard to settle. There are only 2 sets of criteria that would show he's notable--WP:GNG and WP:NBOX. Since it's clear he doesn't meet NBOX, all that is necessary to keep the article is to show several articles that give significant independent coverage of him. Currently, I see lots of fight results in the article and upcoming event announcements but those are routine. Just my opinion, of course. Papaursa (talk) 03:30, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include [14], [15] which both include detailed biographical information about the subject, [16] and [17]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)ld[reply]

Keep Johnson's fight with Frazier was notable in that it was Eddie Futch's 1st fight in Frazier's corner, and more importantly, according to Futch, despite a clear decision, Frazier "looked like the loser" after the fight's conclusion. The California Boxing Hall of Fame should carry some weight in this matter. LawrenceJayM (talk) 23:30, 30 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Jaco (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)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable boxer. Lost to a couple of interesting people but notability not inherited. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete by split decision.Keep with additional added sourcing. He got a nice ESPN article (underutilized in the article) and a Boxing.com book review, but that's not quite enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been expanded from those 2 sources to now 8 sources. -- GreenC 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Jaco is notable not just for his career as a journeyman including bouts against a slew of extraordinarily notalbe fights (Tyson, Buster Douglas, Tommy Morrison, George Foreman etc.) but also for his personal struggles and family boxing legacy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX. Notability is not gained by fighting notable fighters or having sons who also became boxers or ran a boxing school because that's all under WP:NOTINHERITED. Writing a book doesn't automatically show notability, either. Every boxer has a story so that's not enough to show he's different from every other fighter, but the ESPN article is a step towards meeting WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Additional sources added to show he meets WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep The common sense reality is that Wikipedia is an information providing service. There are enough fights on his ledger which had wide audiences and substantial media coverage for it to be fair to conclude that users might well want to know something about his life and career. LawrenceJayM (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:NBOX. Keep voters seem to believe that fighting notable fighters makes someone notable, but I agree with Mdtemp--that's WP:NOTINHERITED. Of course there was interest in the fights of major fighters, but not because Jaco was fighting. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Keep argument is that fighting in very notable fights adds to a person's notability which is confirmed by the very substantial coverage of the fighter and his fights in reliable independent sources. Can you explain why an entire article about this fighter by ESPN and his career doesn't constitute substantial coverage in a reliable independent source? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the ESPN article is good coverage. If someone provides others than I think a case can be made for him meeting WP:GNG. I disagree that merely fighting notable fighters makes you notable--some recent boxer articles have been deleted even though they fought many notable fighters while racking up lots of losses. For right now, I'm withholding my vote. Papaursa (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per GNG. I've expanded the article and sources. -- GreenC 17:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no substantial coverage and fails WP:NBOX. Stifle (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per GNG there are multiple reliable sources have significant coverage. -- GreenC 17:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If he passes the GNG he doesn't need to pass any SSG. WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear on this. He doesn't just get routine coverage for fights. They talk about his personal life and his book. Reliable sources in the article now prove he meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 21:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, but the article had been lacking the sources necessary to show he meets GNG. I believe that has now been rectified. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe there are now enough good sources to show he passes GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 27 January 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 Cary Clarets. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina RailHawks U-23's (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)

Unnecessary content fork of Carolina RailHawks. Not a separate entity. No significant coverage in its own right, separate from the Carolina RailHawks. C679 12:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 12:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Cary Clarets as they both cover the same topic i.e. a notable sports team. Cary Clarets was the old name, Carolina RailHawks U-23's is the new. GiantSnowman 12:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per reasonble discussion above. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per GiantSnowman. Article should be at Carolina RailHawks U-23's with Cary Clarets as a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per GiantSnowman. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 23 January 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Light (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 has zero sources; externally linked website of band is dead. Unresolved notability tag has been on article for last 4 years. Cursory search for RS finds nothing. BlueSalix (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utterly non-notable and zero sources. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Searched all the usual sources, but I cannot find any indication that this band meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. — sparklism ^hey! 08:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A zero page. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I usually vouch for pages of bands that have the slightest bit of notability in any scene, but these guys are completely unknown even by Internet underground standards. Literally less than a hundred listeners in last.fm and there's and average of two votes for their albums in RYM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.190.31.213 (talk) 05:44, 29 January 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. Speedy granted. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qarshi Industries (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, apparently non-notable non-profit organization with a history of SPA contributors spamming on it. A quick Gsearch for "Qarshi Industries" turns up job applications, primary sources, and unreliable sources - not an ounce of anything that counts towards GNG in the first three pages. Searching for "Qarshi Laboratories" also generates a similar result. As a result, we have a company failing WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and they also like to self-promote on Wikipedia to boot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy - Does not assert notability. Tagged for WP:A7. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:55, 21 January 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.  Sandstein  20:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Spirals of Danu (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 self-published ([18]) book series. Sources are Facebook pages, blogs and community reviews, nothing that would meet criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. The court cases mentioned might make possibly make the author notable, but I can find no record of either, nor do the articles cited as sources for these claims appear to exist. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have removed a large bulk of the article, as much of it was sourced by merchant sources. Anyone interested in the original version, can see it here. One of the sources [19] looks to be a local paper, but when I search for the headline I get no actual hits. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I think that this was a fake article, mind you, just that this was probably a very, very local interest piece that never actually got big enough of a notice to get placed on the main website for the Dunfermline Press. As far as local pieces go, they're usable but depreciated greatly- especially if the paper itself doesn't post the article on their website. Although I do note that the WP article for Dunfermline Press marks it as a tabloid, which could bring its reliability into question since we don't normally use tabloids for RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've removed the lawsuit information from the article, as I can find nothing to substantiate either claim that Adil-Smith or the Accipiter Corporation were involved in any legal issues. I searched both the Washington Post and The Scotsman and found nothing. A search in Highbeam brought up nothing as well. Considering that we have zero proof that these lawsuits actually occurred, I've removed the section entirely because without any actual proof that they occurred (not even a public record on the computer at all) we run the risk of legal action from either of the other parties that were supposedly involved. We have no way of knowing if this was an actual lawsuit or if someone was just warned to "lay off" or the equivalent thereof- that's why it's so incredibly important to have reliable sources. If it wasn't an actual lawsuit, then we run the risk of the involved parties saying that we're posting false information. We can't report on things without some actual proof we can all see. If someone can find this proof, we can always re-add the information. I'm a little leery about the fact that nobody has really reported on the lawsuits in general, despite two major papers supposedly covering the events. This doesn't mean that the lawsuits didn't happen, but it does kind of hammer home that they weren't particularly noteworthy lawsuits. When it comes down to it, even if we do find proof to show that the news articles were written, three articles (including the local coverage) aren't enough to show notability in this instance. This is a solidly non-notable series. I wish the author well, but this just isn't ready for Wikipedia yet. It looks to be relatively popular for a self-published series, but popularity doesn't equate to notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no RS, seems promotional BlueSalix (talk) 11:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So, somebody has got a book which is available on Kindle from Amazon... anyone can do that: I know people who have been willing to spend money to do that, and who are now waiting to get enough sales to recoup their expense. So, the book has good reviews on Facebook... the very fact that that is mentioned suggests a lack of reviews anywhere significant. So, someone's book has been the subject of a report in The Scotsman newspaper last month, under the title "Debut Author Grounds Airport"... only the Scotsman's website has no record of any such report. (Also, the title suggests that the report, if it exists, is principally about an incident at an airport, rather than about the book.) Likewise for the other attempts the author of the article has made to make the book seem significant. OK, how about searching for evidence myself? Well, the first page of Google hits consists of Facebook, Goodreads, Twitter, Amazon, and Wikipedia. The next page starts with a blog, and goes on from there. And so it goes on... the more I look at the case, the less it looks as though the book is at all notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:30, 25 January 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 WP:CSD#A7. GiantSnowman 12:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lennox (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)

He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conference league is not professional. Simione001 (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First of all conference league is partially professional. "Around half the Conference Premier clubs are fully professional, whilst most Conference North and Conference South clubs are semi-professional." However, looking through google it seems Maidenhead United is indeed semi-professional only. ([20], [21], [22]). My mistake, as I was under impression that they (Conference and Maidenhead) are professional. Therefore agree with deletion. Also updated on Maidenhead's wiki page.

BTW, what is the status about national football? Are only senior teams notable? Or are under-xx teams also notable? and if so which ones?

--SuperJew (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only senior appearances and olympic appearances are considered notable in regards to representing your nation at international level. Simione001 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Unless, of course the comment from @SuperJew: above is sufficient for WP:CSD#G7 in which case it should be speedy deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @SuperJew:, please can you confirm that you do indeed with the deletion? If so I will speedy it. GiantSnowman 18:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yes, I am with the deletion. --SuperJew (talk) 06:35, 22 January 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 Magic: The Gathering. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Magic: The Gathering through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are 3rd party sources there that seem to be reliable. I don't think we need an entire article on this character, but perhaps one on Planeswalkers or something? Don't know enough about MtG to really guess. I'm opposed to deletion, but don't have a merge target at hand.Hobit (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Contrary to the nomination statement, the article primarily consists of non-plot information, such as what cards he has appeared on, the gameplay abilities of those cards, and what sets those cards are in. There are only a couple sentences of plot details. TTN, I know you like to use basically the same nomination statement for many of your AFD nominations, but please at least edit it so that it is accurate for the article you are currently discussing. Calathan (talk) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Jace is a pretty major character in the game, so shouldn't he get at least some mention? There used to be an article on Planeswalkers, but that's been merged into Magic: The Gathering, but maybe someone with more knowledge on this subject should make a List of Planeswalkers page, then we could merge this into that. For now, though, I oppose deletion. Supernerd11 (talk) 19:32, 9 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the entire race that this character belongs to isn't considered well-supported enough to merit an article, it is difficult to see how the character belongs. Most of the article is about gameplay minutiae with, as the nominator mentions, is better off placed in Wikia than here. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that the notability of a single character should be dependent on whether the group he belongs to is also notable just doesn't align with Wikipedia policy at all. Jace certainly could be covered in reliable sources without reliable sources also covering planeswalkers in general (I assume you are referring to planeswalkers when you say race, even though it wouldn't be called a "race" in terms of the plot). Calathan (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus of editors that a subtopic of an area isn't notable, then other editors can take notice of that when considering the notability of a sub-sub-topic. In any event, real-world notability established by independent sources is absent for this character. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a sub-sub-topic though. To make a comparison to things that are more widely known, that would be like saying Obi-Wan Kenobi is a sub-topic of Jedi, or like saying Albus Dumbledore is a subtopic of wizards in the Harry Potter series. One is a major character in the plot, and the other is the type of character he is. It is quite possible, even likely in many cases, that a major character in the plot of a fictional work would be more widely covered than the special type of being he is. I agree on the sources issue though. Calathan (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, then. I thought it was more like having an article about (to maintain the Star Wars analogies) Oola with no corresponding article about Twi'leks. Although, If it was more like the Jedi situation, I can't conceive having an article about any individual Jedi without also having an article about the Jedi as a concept. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Jace has been probably the most prominent character in the plot of Magic for the last several years, and one of his individual cards is one of the most significant cards printed in the last several years, but I'm not personally aware of any independent reliable sources that cover him (though I haven't made a significant effort to look). It looks like the sources in the article are either primary (published by Wizards of the Coast), or unreliable. Without reliable sources the article shouldn't be kept, but since he is a major character in the plot, I think a redirect might be good (perhaps just to Magic: The Gathering). Calathan (talk) 05:21, 21 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, Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, a major fictional character within the MTG universe, but as those above me have pointed out, not one that has received much if any substantial independent coverage. Does not meet the WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:17, 2 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Promotional article under misleading title. Reads like a press release, and is sourced to notices derived from press releases. DGG ( talk ) 07:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Looks like this article was created and extensively edited by a user with a conflict of intetrest: Infonyeleni (info + nyeleni). Too bad nobody posted this promotional username at WP:UAA in time to act on it. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The article's sources aren't reliable as they are mainly press releases. - tucoxn\^talk 01:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have moved this article to International Nyéléni Forum for Food Sovereignty and made the page Nyéléni about the Malian legend. Apologies if this disrupts the deletion discussion in any way. I have no objection to being reverted if necessary for the sake of this discussion as long as the appropriate (ie. current) titles are restored after its over. Thanks for any assistance necessary and I am sorry for any trouble I've caused. Just trying to fix what's broken and make it right. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. I support Candleabracadabra's action; it seems quite sensible. bobrayner (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While a notable cause, the article is merely link span, and the sourcing is truly terrible. I would suggest starting over or userfication. Bearian (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link span may be something slightly different! :-) bobrayner (talk) 09:15, 23 January 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) 05:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Bollinger (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)

Deleted by AfD debate but reposted. Speedy declined because MMA fighter had fought more top tier fights. Not the case - remains at only one - only change is a signing to a second tier organization. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete PR-cruft that fails GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSalix (talk • contribs) 11:46, 21 January 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Still has only one top tier fight, which isn't enough to meet WP:NMMA. Mdtemp (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 07:47, 27 January 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 into Snow Crash and redirect there. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smartwheels (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 technology from an otherwise notable novel. No sources cited. One external link talking about a similar technology that doesn't mention the book at all. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  05:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Woodroar (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The consensus seems clear (there was a previous AfD discussion) that the parent subject is notable and that this aspect deserves note, but not as its own article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not receive significant coverage by reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as this is a likely name for a redirect. Diego (talk) 12:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge & redirect to Snow Crash. No coverage in books or scholarly journals that I could find, and while I didn't spend a lot of time wading through a general web search, I only saw passing references in reliable sources (e.g. NY Times book review), and brief mentions in very marginally reliable sources (e.g. image-heavy website “magazines” that thrive on "top X whatever" articles as click-bait). ––Agyle (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Snow Crash, it's been awhile since I read Snow Crash, but from memory these are not a major plot point, just a nifty piece of scene-setting futuretech. I'm not sure there's anything worth merging, to be honest. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:19, 2 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

the sources are not sufficient for notability & the article is promotional DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 21 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 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability per WP:GNG WP:CORP and WP:PRODUCT. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Author comment: I added the article originally. There are currently provided a number of mentioning sources including CNET, TheNextWeb and a published book. If one does a Google search for "BlogUpp" it will result in a couple of millions of results. That is notable as per my understanding. There have been noticed lately a number of initiatives and changes at Wikipedia to encourage new contributions. Deletions of this nature don't seem to go in line with that strategy. Sorry to know that and hope the deletion to be reconsidered.Ibjennyjenny (talk) 09:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This page was reviewed and accepted by Anne Delong as part of the Articles for creation process last April. I hope she is able to participate in this discussion. Note: Going through a formal review process like AFC in no way exempts pages from being nominated for deletion or being deleted as a result of a deletion discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The listed book and one other book I found merely mentioned BlogUpp. Nowhere near WP:SIGCOV in the books. As for the millions of web hits, that is a disadvantage in determining notability in this case because it is very difficult to wade through to find the truly independent sources that are giving significant coverage to this topic. Although not required, it would help a lot if the proponents of keeping this would pro-actively search for and find independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this topic and put them on the article's talk page if they are not being used as a reference. Significant coverage is generally more than a paragraph or "capsule review." Independent excludes material that is provided by the publisher or largely based on material provided by the publisher (i.e. the "about this product" summaries you find on many stores and free-software-download web sites are largely based on publisher-provided content and are therefore not independent). Reliable sources exclude most blogs, discussion boards, and other "anyone can contribute" content ("news blogs" are allowed). If such sources are provided quickly, perhaps this AFD can be ended early with a result of "Snow keep." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: At least one editor with an apparent conflict of interest has edited the article recently. I have undone two of those edits for being at least borderline-promotional and kept one that was merely updating existing information without coming across as promotional. I have added ((connected contributor)) to the article's talk page and put a COI-related note on his talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A warning sign that a web site is not notable include content that is mostly the utmost routine trivialities for any such site: what servers it is housed on the signup & authentication procedures and different levels of service, that it uses RSS, that it links with the major social web services, that it has multiple special interest blogs and a directory, and so on. These or some of these can be appropriate content as a small part of an article, but if that's all there is to say... DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - While it's true that there are a lot of hits on Google, the numbers are inflated by several things: (1) Google thinks you don't know how to spell "up" and included "blog up" results (2) BlogUpp seems to have its name all over every site that has used its service as well as (3) it's free, so numerous download sites have it on their list. Also, the majority of the mentions of BlogUpp are on blog posts (not surprisingly). On the other hand, because there are so many of these blog mentions, it's hard to sort out any legitimate coverage. However, there is "Blogging by Million, Earn by Millions: How the Young Savvies Earn Millions, "Is adv.blogupp.com a fake site ?", "Automate your blog promotion with BlogUpp", "Blogging tips", "101 FREE Ways To Promote Your Blog", "[23]", "BlogUpp.com – Get Free Adverts for Your Blog" —Anne Delong (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Insider Note: Dear Wikipedians,
  

It's great to know Wikipedia has such dedicated contributors.

Turns out I'm the one davidwr refers herein as COI editor. Besides backing a blog supporting company, I'm a curator myself of our blogger community and the blog network. Hence understand the efforts you are making to ensure the quality of the encyclopedia. Bravo to you all, really.

In retrospect, I'm grateful in the first place to Ibjennyjenny for submitting the initial article. Being aware of it, contributed myself when there was a logo change and internal company updates. As a trustworthy go to destination of verified information, thought Wikipedia should be the place I should mention those updates firsthand.

Apologies if that doesn't meet the norms here. According to them, I'm also not in a position to bring more arguments on current subject. Hence if considered necessary by Wikipedia veterans, I'll conform to the consequences of the nomination and thank you all for your time.

Respectfully,

Valer Batcu (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Valer Batcu, and thanks for declaring your COI. Updating a company logo seems like a legitimate action for someone from a company, since it involves no opinion, but "insider" information is not appropriate in any article, since articles are supposed to be a summary of published information about a topic. However, each article has a talk page, and if you find a source you think may be useful, or find inaccurate information in the article, you can discuss it there and if neutral editors agree they may make the changes. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• BlogUpp seems like an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. Wikipedia articles are governed by community agreed upon criteria. They are generally deleted or kept based on whether substantial coverage in reliable independent sources exists. While this subject has been mentioned it does not appear to have received substantial coverage in newspapers, magazines, books or from other reliable independent sources. So I recommend Delete at this point in time. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It does not appear that BlogUpp meets the standards of WP:GNG or WP:CORP. The closest thing to a meaningful writeup is the one in CNET, but that is from 2008. The CNET item gives a better explanation of what BlogUpp actually does than the current Wikipedia article. As DGG observes, the inclusion of trivial details about the service actually makes the article less plausible. EdJohnston (talk) 03:35, 29 January 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 Submucosa. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article is promotional in nature, existing to promote SIS as a graft, and almost exclusively relies on primary sources. An article on the submucosa, titled submucosa, already exists, and any extra content would duplicate what is already found in the submucosa article. LT910001 (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Submucosa. Article has significant issues but there is enough notability to preclude deletion. Merging it should solve most of the problems. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The “Small Intestinal Submucosa” page was created to highlight the use of small intestinal submucosa (SIS) as a biomaterial in the manufacturing of medical devices, and is meant to be separate from the anatomical discussion of the submucosa72.12.219.155 (talk) 19:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Best covered in a combined article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge seems right. I removed some unsourced claims. 23:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject fails GNG and BIO. On a side note you might try using PROD before referring to AfD unless that's already been done. If worded strongly and citing the correct chapter and verses, I find PROD is effective about 70% of the time in getting rid of these kinds of promotional articles. I try to save AfD for the situations where the author wants to contest the deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While "no indication of significance"" is an inappropriate application of CSD criteria, and in any event inapt because the article does make claims of significance, the article subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. There are references for a number of relatives, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:16, 22 January 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. With a gentle reminder to the nominator to play the ball, not the editor. Whether you feel an editor has usefully contributed to the project is irrelevant to the question of whether a specific article should be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

InfoStreet (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 created by User:Hutchisojl. She has an impressive userpage, but overall, I do not feel that she has improved Wikipedia through her contributions. She has created only three articles: blatantly promotional articles about Kashoo,[24] InfoStreet, and SkyDesktop.

There are two reasons to delete this "InfoStreet" article. Even one reason would be enough, but I shall list both.

Argument A: The text fails G11 and WP:NOTPROMOTION. So it should be slow-deleted per G11.

Argument B: The subject fails our inclusion criteria. So it should be deleted per WP:42.

The SD Times ref fails SIGCOV and INDY, and the Directions ref fails INDY. Perhaps you will find some other sources; still, you may find it impossible to refute Argument B. User:Ihcoyc explains:

"The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.

"Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business."

You may vote as you wish. If you vote "keep", please refute both of my arguments. If you want to refute only one argument, please comment instead of voting.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC); edited 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Its voluminous sources notwithstanding, this article fails to demonstrate WP:N. Sources are either primary or trivial in their coverage. Side note: I think we should take a deep breath before impugning the motives of new editors. I appreciate your strong advocacy in laying out the case against the article and mostly agree with your points, as evidenced by my "delete." But I am not so sure about your dismissal of trade publications. The simple truth is that many techy things are only covered by trade specific publications. If we preclude them entirely as WP:RS we will be setting up barriers to articles about legitimate topics. I would agree though that trade pubs need to be treated with some caution. Not all are equal. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I thank you for your words. About your last point: See our corporate inclusion guideline. WP:AUD says that every article must have at least one mainstream source, and that "media of limited interest and circulation" are OK only if an article already has at least one mainstream source. (This is true only for corporations; in this regard, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are more strict regarding corporations than regarding anything else.) True, the SD Times and Directions refs may fail SIGCOV and/or INDY, but in addition, I think that they also point to "media of limited interest and circulation". Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The company seems like it ought to be notable - it was one of the very earliest internet-focused companies - but the coverage just isn't there. I'm not impressed by the references in the article, and I found nothing to add to them in a search. BTW Unforgettable, I agree with Ad Orientem: you should focus your arguments on the article itself and the notability of the article's subject - not on the author of the article. IMO it's also inappropriate to instruct people how you think they should !vote. --MelanieN (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi MelanieN. Excellent point about instructing people how to !vote; I hadn't thought of that. I have now edited the relevant part of my nomination. Is it good now? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You removed the instruction to !vote delete, but you are still telling people what they have to do in order to respond to your satisfaction. (If you vote "keep", please refute both of my arguments. If you want to refute only one argument, please comment instead of voting.) IMO you should trust Wikipedians to know how to comment at an AfD. And whaddaya know - it turns out that we all agreed with you anyhow! --MelanieN (talk) 02:15, 29 January 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Ringworld through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ringworld or Delete. Not notable. Does not seem to have significant coverage outside of book reviews and fan pages. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real-world notability Shii (tock) 14:10, 21 January 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A couple of months ago, I nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PernixData. MelanieN and Keithbob put in impressive work and removed all vanispamcruftisement from the article, and I thank them both. Half a week later, after reading MelanieN's arguments, I agreed with her that PernixData was notable after all. The article was kept.

Just a week later, the article creator returned and started adding vanispamcruftisement back in again. We could keep the article and play the game of gradually semi-protecting the article for longer and longer lengths of time. But, on second thought, I respectfully disagree with MelanieN. PernixData is NN, and we should just delete the article.

Let me explain why PernixData is NN.

True, the Forbes ref is fine.

But the refs in TechCrunch, InfoWorld, Gigaom, Computerworld, eWeek, CRN Magazine, Virtualization Review, Modern Infrastructure, and Willemterharmsel.nl are not enough to meet WP:CORP. User:Ihcoyc said it best:

The current notability guideline for businesses discount purely local coverage, on the grounds that while your business may be notable in the town in which it operates, this doesn't translate to notability in the general world.

Trade publications and websites, in my opinion, suffer from the same problem. They just aren't likely to be read by anyone outside your trade. And, since many such publications rely on submissions from the businesses they cover, their independence is also subject to some doubt. If you want to rest your case on notability on coverage in business periodicals, they need to be general interest and general circulation periodicals of the Wall Street Journal and Business Week type. A mention in Blacksmithing Today or Modern Dental Offices just doesn't feed the weasel. Likewise, your receiving a minor award at an industry awards banquet does not make a strong case for notability of your business.

MelanieN, Keithbob, I convinced you to de-spam the article; in doing so, I wasted your time. This was foolish of me, and a mistake. I apologize. :(

Still, I feel it is time for us to delete our PernixData article once and for all.

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My first reaction was that a content dispute is not a valid reason for deletion (protection, etc. are the proper solutions), but this article fails the Hoover's test (i.e., it has no listing). Weak keep - still fails the Hoover's test, but now appears to meet WP:GNG even though the press coverage may be nothing more than strong PR. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article needs clean-up, not deletion. I've seen this argument before, and I reject it. Trade publications are a perfectly acceptable source. The general notability guideline is quite explicit in its requirements, and there's nothing in it about TechCrunch's disqualification as a source of notability for tech-related topics. If the article sucks, then slap it with a badge of shame, contact the relevant WikiProject for assistance, and/or fix it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Use of the strange neologism "vanispamcruftisement" is not at all persuasive to me. I reject the argument that all coverage in "trade publications" is worthless for establishing notability as many trade publications such as Aviation Week & Space Technology have very high editorial standards. The notion that InfoWorld and Computerworld are not reliable sources seems implausible to me. And if "Blacksmithing Today" and "Modern Blacksmithing" and three other reputable blacksmithing publications report that a certain person is the leading blacksmith of the early 21st century, then that person is a notable blacksmith. Coverage in Forbes just seals the deal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I bow to no one in my frustration with the pervasive corporate spam and self promotional articles on Wikipedia, but this one clearly passes WP:N. With all due respect to User:Ihcoyc, he/she is not WP:RS. The argument advanced is not consistent with existing RS guidelines and should not be employed on AfD. Further, I respectfully believe AfD is not an appropriate forum for resolving interpersonal disagreements with other editors. If you believe someone is routinely engaging in inappropriate editing, then caution them. If that fails refer the matter to Admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [25], [26], [27], [28]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Nominator raises salient and interesting points, however, most notable is that we will have to continue protecting this article to prevent its continued editing by PR reps who will always have more time (since they're paid to do it) than the volunteers at WP will have to revert edits. With deference to the points raised by Ad Orientem, while that is not considered grounds for deletion in our GNG, I am making a common sense/Ignore All Rules decision to override those in expressing my opinion for delete. This article does not contain essential knowledge or information. More harm is done keeping these kind of non-essential articles that are destined to become promotional pieces than in just shutting them down completely (at least until they reach the point of notability where sufficient volunteer eyes are on the article to avoid its PR manipulation). BlueSalix (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True, the PR guys might have more time than any one of us, but there's many more than one of us. If the disruption gets out of hand, we can always protect the page. Like Ad Orientem, I hate the idea of voting to keep spammy, promotional articles, but this does fulfill the criteria for inclusion. WP:IAR is a better invocation than WP:CORP, but I haven't yet seen evidence that we're dealing with extraordinary circumstances that require us to bypass existing (and working) policies. Normally I'd support raising the bar on notability guidelines, but I think this goes too far. Too many important niche articles would be affected, and it would be near impossible to satisfy notability concerns on anything less notable than a multinational conglomerate like Sony. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you just said in theory and you raise valid points. In practice, however, while the "more of us than them" argument works on big articles like Lady Gaga, on a niche article on a tiny tech company, it never will function because - at most - there will be 1-2 WP editors paying attention to it (usually less). I've just had to throw-in the towel on an article being sat-on by 3 different and very aggressive PR agents because I was the only legit editor on it; it was so niche no one else really cared. Now it just sits here as a promotional bio, untouchable. If I had my druthers, in situations like that, the article would be deleted and salted. We've got to stop being so huggy-wuggy, chocolates & flowers, around here. At some point a precedent has to be set because the dam is bursting holes more frequently than ever and this whole thing is about to come crashing down. I maintain my Strong Delete on this for reasons of Line in the Sand. BlueSalix (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that such a thing happened. Which article? And did you contact WP:COIN? —Unforgettableid (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, thanks. It's Ronan Farrow but the situation is so complex that there's really no point in raising it as an issue. The PR edits there are 100x beyond the norm; it's a very skilled team effort - the sockmaster, in some cases, will actually coordinate his socks to make block noms against you. I was emailed off-WP by a journalist who was interested in the guarding of this entry and had additional information so my cognizance of the situation is fuller than I would be able to explain in COIN. While this might peak your interest, I would really recommend avoiding that entry at all costs unless you want to get dragged to hell and back. I just treat it as an "off limits" article at this point. BlueSalix (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No apology necessary, Unforgettable; I felt then the subject was notable based on sources, and I still think so. Notability abides in the subject, not the state of the article. We have many article here that are vandalism magnets or POV-pusher targets, but that does not mean we delete them; we simply do what we have to, to keep them encyclopedic. Among other things, that's what watchlists are for. Similarly, I don't really understand what this company does, but I wouldn't expect to; I am not a techie. The people who DO understand what this company does seem to find it valuable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The page was clearly a PR job for it failed to mention any competitors (easily found in sources) and seemed to avoid citing the more straight-to-the-point sources [29] too, but I fixed that. This is the kind of start-up that typically gets bought by bigger fish, like ioTurbine before it. A lot of the industry awards really are cruft though. I should add that PernixData employee FrankDenneman, who has edited this article, is among the most well-known VMware bloggers [30] (and self-styled member of vMafia), which probably explains the awesomeness of the press coverage. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvements, Someone! --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 25 January 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 into Kamal-ol-molk -- RoySmith (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The subject of this article lacks notability. The sources cited do not discuss the subject just mention it. Google search returns no hits connected to this subject [31]. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominated, not even enough here to merit a merge to the artist.TheLongTone (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Article probably qualifies for speedy deletion (A7). -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article does not qualify for WP:A7 as it is not about real person, nor about individual animal(s), nor about organization, nor about web content, nor organized event. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think it is likely notable, but it might be difficult to find sources, since they are likely to be in Persian and off-line. Dedicated art books on the artist would be my guess. If the sources have not been found during the nomination, the article should be redirected rather than deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious merge to artist, Kamal-ol-molk (as should be done for the rest of the paintings in the artist's gallery. If the names redirecting are problematic no redirects should be left, I haven't looked into that issue in depth. But these paintings don'tneed their own articles as no sources covering them individually in depth have been presented. They are covered as part of the artist's career and should be covered so here as well. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kamal-ol-molk (WP:PRESERVE). Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Kamal-ol-molk - the title of a picture is a likely search term. Diego (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Kamal-ol-molk seems to be the best solution. --Artene50 (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above - seems worthwhile...Modernist (talk) 11:50, 30 January 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.