< 21 January	23 January >

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) 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Driller[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His alias in gay porn. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete BLP that fails GNG or any SNGs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with views expressed by the nominator and Spartaz. Finnegas (talk) 10:15, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Noir[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation by IP with only one other edit. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete BLP that fails GNG or any SNGs. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with views expressed by the nominator and Spartaz. Finnegas (talk) 10:10, 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 delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Prince (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, only nominations. No independent, reliable sourcing. No reliably sourced biographical content. PROD removed without explanation by IP. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. No claim of notability. No reliable source coverage found in searches. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 20:20, 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 Withdrawn. after improvements to the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XOLO[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator based on recent addition of reliable sources.
Doesn't meet WP:CORP . Not inherently notable - does have a partnership with Liverpool FC. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as fails WP:CORP & is more like an advert then anything!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC) Speedy Keep per below.[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some reviews of their products in reliable sources, so I'll list them on the page as I find them in a products section. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think that the promotional tones are unintentional and are more just because the user is a new, young editor that's writing about something he is particularly fond of. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Read this, don't need more to explain. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:42, 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. I find User:Ibadibam's second argument persuasive. An article on different wedding banquet traditions across different cultures would probably be a neat thing to have, but at the moment there's no content in the proposed target article and not enough coverage to indicate that candy buffets are a widespread thing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candy buffet[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as most Google hits found are how-to's or "where can you buy this" stuff. Gives the feel of an advertisement and acts certainly (see history) as a spam-magnet. The Banner talk 21:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wedding reception - Not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, but worth mentioning in the context of other wedding reception elements. Ibadibam (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. Read Wedding reception#Food and Wedding reception#Banquet procedure. These are very brief, general summaries, which already inform readers that the food varies by cultural custom. There is no appropriate place in the article for a quick aside about the tiny phenomenon of candy buffets in the United States. Ringbang (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wedding reception or delete. Merging would possibly be undue. Customs which are described as emerging do not deserve the same amount of space as those that are clearly established by reliable sources. And they certainly don't deserve their own article without satisfying the WP:GNG. I don't see much in the way of significant coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No sense redirecting if there's no related content on the target page. Better to delete if not merging. Ibadibam (talk) 19:45, 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 keep DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol without liquid[edit]

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

Non-neutral OR with a negligible amount of salvageable content. References are wanting. Ringbang (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article is currently at Alcohol inhalation. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename & rescope to e.g. Alcohol vaporizer or Alcohol inhalation. The broader topic of "alcohol smoking" is notable means of alcohol/drug administration, and presents a health concern. Apparently, AWOL was just one, possibly the first, who marketed the practice, and was eventually banned across a range of U.S States. Here's a short list of news articles dealing with the broader topic:
- Robert Glatter (June 21, 2013), The Dangers Of "Smoking" Alcohol, Forbes.com
- Jeff Gordinier (January 11, 2013), Vaportini, Alcohol Vaporizer, Lets You Inhale Alcohol, Huffington Post
- James Nye (14 January 2013), Parents' horror as new $35 device lets you INHALE alcohol goes on sale in U.S., Daily Mail
- Michelle Castillo (June 5, 2013), Inhaling alcohol vapor puts you at risk of overdose, CBS News
- Alexandra Sifferlin (June 5, 2013), Smoking Alcohol: The Dangerous Way People Are Getting Drunk, TIME

Not directly on topic, but in clinical research of alcoholism, "male mice were made physically dependent on alcohol via 72 hours of alcohol vapor inhalation." (Samir Zakhari; et al. Stress, Gender, and Alcohol-Seeking Behavior. p. 183.). I didn't find any medical research on humans smoking alcohol, possibly because the practice is rather novel. No such user (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Done, now. The article still needs work, but I think that the afd can be withdrawn now. No such user (talk) 11:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not withdrawing the AfD nomination. What you have now is a coatrack article almost entirely about one product. The article title is ambiguous, the main points of the lead section are unsourced; the "History" section is all about two products in the US; the coverage of the Vaportini is OR; the "Marketing" section is unencyclopedic; and the "Medical applications" section is an improper synthesis of scientific research, in which you imply that recreational use of an alcohol vaporizer or nebulizer has documented medical benefits. An AfD nomination doesn't necessarily imply that a topic is unencyclopedic. In this case, the topic is still indeterminate, and I contend that having no article is preferable to having an article like this one. Ringbang (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. I'm not claiming I made a good article in this short time, but one passable on Afd. The rest of the debate is more suitable for its talk page. I'll just refute your main points:

Per WP:LEADCITE, "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead". What is exactly contested in this lead, and not cited in the article?
The AWOL was the first product of this type, and one that created most fuss. Even the 2013 Forbes makes a reference to it, and 2013 Capital Bay article has "AWOL" in the title.
Vaportini is explicitly named in no less than 3 refs: 2 cited in the article (Capital Bay, Forbes) and Huffington Post, above
Apart from these two marketed devices, there is a range of DIY methods, which should be mentioned when the article is expanded
Yes, Marketing is bad. Should be removed, or put in context. Effects section is now empty. That is a reason for editing, not for deletion.
Any WP:SYN readings are entirely yours. The section just briefly enumerates legitimate medical uses of alcohol inhalation, not of recreational alcohol abuse.
No such user (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article's name has been changed to Alcohol inhalation. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now somebody has changed it again, to Inhalation of alcohol vapor. I think the title Alcohol inhalation was better and have started a discussion on the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wish people would stop changing the name of the article, especially when it's at AfD. It's confusing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic of alcohol inhalation has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing Wikipedia's notability standards. Also keep per WP:HEY, per the expansion of the article by User:No such user. In addition to the sources provided above by No such user, there's also this source from Oxford Journals: Inhalation of Alcohol Vapor Driven by Oxygen is a Useful Therapeutic Method for Postoperative Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in a Patient with Esophageal Cancer: a Case Report. Clearly a notable topic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was in poor shape when nominated, but it has since been expanded with a broader reach and improved references. The subject is clearly worthy of an article here, and the article is now in decent encyclopedic shape. The name of the article still needs to be determined. --MelanieN (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has been significantly improved, and the sources in the article show notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I also prefer the title Alcohol inhalation for the article, rather than "Inhalation of alcohol vapor". Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back to Alcohol inhalation. No such user (talk) 13:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow you moved the talk page but not the article page; it is still at Inhalation of alcohol vapor. Let's see if we can find an admin to straighten this mess out. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There we go - User:Peridon fixed it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:45, 24 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 no consensus. Opinion is divided about the issue of notability. Sandstein 19:26, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of e-Collaboration[edit]

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

Non-notable journal. No evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as per WP:GNG. I'm aware of the WP:ESSAY at WP:NJournals, but it's exactly that, an essay not a guideline or policy. Note: I removed some unsourced claims of indexing and abstracting from the article, because I checked the ACM Portal and there was neither indexing nor abstracting of this journal in a meaningful sense. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possible journal-mill BlueSalix (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stuart, I think you were a bit too fast deleting the indexing info from the article. Looking at the journal website, they don't claim to be in the ACM Portal, so that error must have been introduced on our side. In contrast, they are included in Scopus and we generally accept such journals as being notable. I'll re-add Scopus to the article (with a reference) and check the other deleted databases as soon as I have time. But really, Scopus suffices. --Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there has been confusion between the ACM Portal and the ACM Digital Library: the journal is included in the latter. --Randykitty (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no confusion on my part. All volumes 2005-2009 are missing, mangled or unusable. Note that neither of the references you've just added to the article are WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they not RS???? The ACM Digital Library and Scopus are definitely reliable sources. And I didn't say the confusion was on your part: the article said "ACM Portal" and that was indeed incorrect. --Randykitty (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the journal is also in Inspec (another selective database), but I haven't yet figured out how to provide a reference, because you and only see this if you have access and in addition they use dynamic URLs that are session specific... --Randykitty (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Both the ACM portal and Scopus (via it's owner Elsevier) are in financial relationships with IGI Global regarding reselling the content (and/or deep linking back to IGI to sell the content directly, with the ACM some things appear to differ depending on what part of the world you're in). This makes them non-independent in this matter, see WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus is operated in such a way that journal selection is independent of Elsevier's other activities. In any case, the journal is also in PsycINFO. Far as I can see, the APA has no financial interest in IGI. --Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The journal is indexed in INSPEC (behind a paywall, I verified the journal was on the old 2012 list), PsychINFO [1] and SCOPUS (sourcerecord id 12000154321 in the April 2013 title list), all selective indexes. The journal thus satisfies notability criteria according to WP:NJournals criterion 1. While WP:NJournals is still technically an essay, in AfD discussions about journals, it has been treated as a de facto guideline for notability for at least the last 15 months I have been at WP. That WP:NJournals hasn't yet been adopted as a guideline seems more a symptom of the increasing difficulty in changing policy at WP than inadequacies in the proposed guidelines themselves. To build a good encyclopedia, we occasionally need to treat bureaucracy as damage and route around it. --Mark viking (talk) 22:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just investigated SCOPUS systems whose listing of the journal is claimed above to make it notable. There appears to be no indication that SCOPUS is different in these regards from any of the others above, but it's the one I had easiest access to.

(a) the only information available about the journal within SCOPUS not also available from the publishers website appears to be automatically parsed bibliographies in the articles use to generate 'this article cites these other articles' type links. It's obviously automatically parsed, due to the mistakes in parsing, that are of a kind a human would never make. There is no sign of human-intervention; there is no sign of editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability

(b) all IGI Global journals, except very new ones appear to be in SCOPUS (I only tested about 2 dozen, ~~all from before 2010~~ all from 2010 or before). Given that IGI Global is what might be called the bulk end of the market rather than the quality end of the market (see extensive coverage on Talk:IGI Global about their quality and business practises), it is safe to say that this 'selective list' is not being selective on quality.

(c) what was missing from SCOPUS was many open access journals (both old and new). So maybe the 'selective' in our 'selective list' comes down the the business model the journal is operating under.

(d) if the 'selective' in 'selective list' does relate more to business model than to journal quality, this draws into question both the suitability of these lists for determining wikipedia notability and the veracity of the claim (above) that commercial services can be run independently.

In short: I'm still looking for anything that meets WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The GNG does not work well for everything,and academic journals are one of the things where it is least effective, either for inclusion or exclusion. Journals are notable when the community of scholars use and cite them, and the measure of this is inclusion in the selective indexes,. Scopus and ISI are probably the best ones to look at. WoS from ISI has for the fields it covers been the best measure in many cases, but because the nature of its measurement system requires at least two years of data it can not include new journals however important or notable. Scopus is possibly the best alternative. It has its defects, both of inclusion and exclusion, but so does everything else. (It is furthermore an open question to what extent it or any other conventional measure is fully applicable to pure e-journals.) Of course Scopus (and WoS) are prepared automatically-the human selection is in making the selection of journals to include, not preparing the index. But inclusion of the journal is exactly what we are dealing with here. Of course they include most or all of the journals from the major publishers--that's the nature of publishing in scientific subjects. The major publishers are in fact the ones that publish the important journals, and the nature of the publisher is one of the key ways in which lbraries select them. The universal applicability of the GNG is not policy; it is not even a guideline; it is in fact contradicted specifically by the notability guideline, which says it is the usual, not the universal measure. The relevant policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE, In judging how to apply that. the general rule for how we apply policy says that We can include whatever we find helps the encyclopedia to include, and that is one of our core principles.

There is an alternative basis for inclusion: it is possibly the most use to our readers that we include articles for all journals which are used in articles. I am not yet prepared to adopt this, but there's a lot to be said for it--we are, after all, NOT PAPER . There's nothing preventing us, if we choose to. We're here to be useful, not to follow arbitrary guidelines as if they were divine regulations. DGG ( talk ) 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that this journal is insufficiently indexed/cited to be covered by Wikipedia. The long post by DGG above is a general rant about GNG not being suitable for academic journals, but it does not refute the nominator's points about this particular journal being hardly notable even in academia itself. In particular, the whole frigging journal has a "Citation Count: 36" in ACM's Digital Library. That's ridiculously low. We wouldn't keep an article about an individual paper with that citation count and it is absurd to keep a whole journal that obscure. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The ACM Digital Library is very specialized and limited, so it is not surprising that you get low citation counts there. If you click the link to Google Scholar just above the nom, you will see that the second article listed by itself has almost double the number of citations than what ACM gives for the whole journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That their most cited paper only has <100 (68) citations in the very inclusive GS is an even better argument to delete. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Many of the mid-level journals will have such citation counts (depending on the field). In this field, I don't find this exceptionally low. --Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 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. The copyright argument is unconvincing. Copyright subsists only in creative works, which do not include tables of compiled statistics. But there's consensus to delete this content for other reasons as well. Sandstein 19:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA rankings of the AFC[edit]

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

Also includes the following

List of FIFA rankings of the AFC (1993–1995)
List of FIFA rankings of the AFC (1996–2000)
List of FIFA rankings of the AFC (2001–2005)
List of FIFA rankings of the AFC (2006–2010)
List of FIFA rankings of the AFC (2011–2015)

The whole lot is a copy of the source and would be better referenced as a see also in FIFA Ranking. It fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we can't have lists? It's a list of the old FIFA rankings for the AFC confederation. There is nothing wrong with that. Every ranking table has a source. There really is no discussion as this is historic data. --weka (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:COPYVIO. The FIFA World Rankings are copyrighted (hence why we only list the top 20 in the FIFA World Rankings article), so to list the positions of all 50-odd AFC teams for every month of the rankings' history is a massive copyright violation. – Pee Jay 19:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - yes it's possible copyvio, but also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTSTATS. Giant Snowman 19:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see... so why does the AFC wiki page list all of the 50 nation's rankings? Is that not copyrighted? What's the point of having THAT table (AFC, UEFA, OFC, etc) in every confederation's page if they are copyrighted. --weka (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, shoot. You guys are right. I guess it's my own fault for not reading up on this. Thanks for the lesson. It can be deleted. I may have lost a lot of work but I learned something, I guess. --weka (talk) 19:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GS and PJ. Copyvio. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 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 procedural close. This is an Articles for creation submission that is not in Wikipedia's main (article) namespace. Articles for deletion is an incorrect venue for Wikipedia namespace content (content prefixed with "Wikipedia"). The correct venue to nominate this for deletion is located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kutubpur, A village in Chuadanga Dinstrict, Bangladesh[edit]

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

Mehedi (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close: Wrong venue, try WP:Miscellany for deletion. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:15, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Open English[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:70.208.21.233, whose edit-summary rationale was "wikiepdia is not for company bios and ads, this is not notable." I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 02:04, 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 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as WP:PROMOTIONAL while welcoming its eventual organic reconstitution BlueSalix (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The tone of the article doesn't strike me as particularly problematic, but as far as I can tell, ~~all~~ many of the sources come from the company or its advertisements or business profiles. Notability is not established. Cnilep (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe in five years. There is little substance in this article, and no indication of cultural relevance. It reads like the "History" or "About us" page on a corporate website. The advertisements section seems like a weird PR thing. Ringbang (talk) 01:53, 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) 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Little Kids Rock[edit]

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

No evidence of notability; Google News finds me one 2003 piece from the Ocala Star-Banner and a number of pieces mentioning it in passing as the recipient of funds, which isn't really substantial coverage of the organisation. Article is also flagrantly promotional in tone. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. Two hits in GBooks don't do much: here's a directory-style entry, and here David Byrne spends two paragraphs on it, the most significant coverage I was able to find. I am suspicious of the history, particularly this edit, which reads like an absolute copyvio (of the promotional kind), but I cannot find a source for it (and it's six years old). The article was created by an SPA, and I have doubts about some of the other contributors' objectivity; I just rolled back what I could of Pianofan1's work, all of which is to promote the club. Anyway, that's not so important now: delete for lack of notability. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: a SPA with a familiar name from the article, no less. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well-reasoned. Delete Ringbang (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no inherent notability. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:08, 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. Sandstein 19:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pingoat[edit]

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

Unambiguously promotional article with no notability and no references whatsoever. BiH (talk) 16:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly written for advertisement purpose. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - software article of unclear notability lacking sufficient reliable sourcing. The two refs in the article are incidental mentions, and a search did not turn up any significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't even open the article but I feel safe in heralding my support to throw this one off the train BlueSalix (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What if all the people behind deleted projects and companies got together and did a "We're important, too" benefit concert? It would get so much press that we—I mean they—would finally get an article and could die in peace knowing that it gets three views per day. Ringbang (talk) 02:04, 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 Valid arguments for deletion (information copied straight from the primary source, no secondary sorces to back it up, no credible reason to maintain a mirror of that data, questions over the intellectual property involved) outweigh arguments for keep (WP:ILIKEIT and "meh", basically). Guy (Help!) 18:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors by total box-office gross[edit]

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

by definition constantly out of date list, using exactly 1 source. http://boxofficemojo.com/people/?view=Actor&sort=sumgross&order=DESC&p=.htm

If all we are doing is copying a different list, using exactly the inclusion criteria they chose (movies, excluding cameo, excluding voice work, US (&canada?) domestic gross only) it seems like this is a probable copyvio (even though the underlying facts are PD, the aggregation and criteria of those facts may not be)

WP:NOT a list of trivia that can easily be found elsewhere.

Also note that there are zero incoming links to this article, making it nothing more than google bait that can be provided elsewhere. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, no reason for this list of trivia to have its own wiki page if all of the information is available at the source websiteI feel like a tourist (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Tagged for CSD. Article based on a single source duplicates the content unnecessarily and without concern for accuracy, data from other countries, etc. More importantly, however, it consists entirely of data lifted from its one source and thus a copyvio. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 23:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Declined G12 - none of the prose is a copyvio - an actor's name, the number of films, and the money may be the same - but they are just simple facts and would always match up, no matter where the data came from. Just let the AfD run it's course. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 15 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, postdlf (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let's see some more substantive discussion: the copyvio claim appears to be a non-starter, as is "the information is available elsewhere" (kind of a requirement to be verifiable and avoid being WP:OR). postdlf (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

postdlf I would not be so sure about copyvio being a non starter. There are many actors/movies not included in the source list. Duplicating exactly their content, using exactly their criteria certainly can be a copyvio. For example see Feist v. Rural "In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself." and "Therefore, you can rewrite a recipe in your own words and publish it without infringing copyrights. But, if you rewrote every recipe from a particular cookbook, you might still be found to have infringed the author's copyright in the choice of recipes and their "coordination" and "presentation", even if you used different words;" also internationally "Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself." - In this case the selection criteria are fairly specific. US & Canada. Domestic revenue only. Exclude voice. Exclude Cameo. Updated by the source authors determination. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing creative about the arrangement of this list (which is by $ amount by default, and otherwise sortable), nor its particular expression (just names and numbers in a table). So all that would leave us as potentially copyrightable is selection. As copyright law does not protect mere formulas, the selection itself would have to require creative decisionmaking (such as "most influential", "important", or any subjective assessment of quality that you'd see in editor's choice lists like this one), but none of the criteria appear to be clearly subjective. So if you hang your hat too much on that argument you're not likely to accomplish anything here, because it's not especially persuasive (as the declined speedy deletion should have already told you). Which is why I recommended the discussion focus on other issues. (PS: It's bad form to dump a wall of copy and pasted text into a thread, for many, many reasons. The boldface didn't help, either.) postdlf (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a list that some people would find interesting. As I don't use many websites other than Wikipedia, it is a great list for someone like me. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "It's interesting" is specifically one of the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere. And on the converse, there are any number of subjects or topics which an individual editor may not care about. However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article." --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 22:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople by nickname[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Is this page required? I mean there are tonnes of sportspeople with nickname, and anybody who's interested can find their nickname in their profile. NovaSkola (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Is this page required?" is a question to pose on the talk page...and even there, hopefully with some elaboration. That is not a deletion rationale. Especially given that there have been multiple AFDs with substantive discussion (and multiple AFDs closed as "keep") that you have failed to even comment on, this should be closed as speedy keep to avoid wasting anyone's time unless you present an actual argument for deletion promptly. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think it's become an indiscriminate list. We have listings because some sportswriter, one time, called someone something. That is more of a waste of time to me than this AfD is. Yes, "Magic" Johnson or "Refrigerator" Perry are notable nicknames, but it could easily be covered in their bio. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination does not seem to be needed. There are entire books written about this such as Sports Nicknames and From Abba-Dabba to Zorro: The World of Baseball Nicknames. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly legitimate list, well-sourced, and a valuable finding aid as well. Any concerns about excessive or arguably trivial entries would be an editing issue that could be addressed by inclusion criteria discussed by editors on the talk page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew "the Rampaging Inclusionist". No convincing reason for deletion has been offered. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:LISTN, because the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Source examples include:

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:39, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Mack[edit]

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

Article is a biography of a living person created after 2010. Article's subject is a pornographic actress who does not meet standards for Wikipedia:Notability. Primary sources for article are problematic by standards of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Half of cited sources are from Xbiz, a trade magazine for webmasters hosting pornagraphy. Other sources include the "Internet Adult Film Database", "guysgabafterdark.com". However, article contains two links to the reputable source AVN which I believe disqualifies the article from the deletion procedure stipulated by Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. My primary contention is that Wikipedia is not an online listing for sex workers. While Wikipedia should include references to sex workers who are socially relevant, who have had a large impact on their culture or society, or sex workers who have been part of productions that meet the requirements above, Ms. Mack meets none of these criteria and as such the article is to be viewed must accurately as the inclusion of indiscriminate information as clarified in WP:DISCRIMINATE. While one citation included in the article would seem to point to Ms Mack having a notability outside of pornagraphic producers, namely the Vice Magazine article "Hanging Out With Pornstar Christy Mack Made Me Less Scared of Porn", upon reading the piece the article was less an article based solely as an personal interest interview with Ms Mack based on her notability and more a piece based on the author's views of pornagraphy in which Mack is used as a foil to the author's views. In other words, Mack was used in the piece to fill the role of 'pornagraphic actress' and was not based on specific interest in Mack. Jaydubya93 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with a host of awards.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because she won some awards and so her legacy will follow her the rest of her life. 76.4.134.147 (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC) Changed to delete because I found out there is an editor who is a promoter for the agency who represents these girls. 76.4.134.147 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — 76.4.134.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - seems like she just won Best New Starlet at the XBIZ Awards tonight. I'll wait for confirmation tomorrow. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO (XBIZ Award or not) and is very likely to pass WP:GNG. Cavarrone 07:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator's detailed assessment and the consensus established after a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiera King "that necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required by WP:BLP.... trumps a guideline like WP:PORNBIO". Finnegas (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO with her Venus, AVN, and XBIZ awards. Also passes WP:ENTERTAINER by winning "Miss FreeOnes", "FreeOnes Best Newcomer", and AVN's fan award for "Most Promising New Starlet" because those were all fan voted awards and one of the ENTERTAINER criteria states "Has a large fan base or a significant cult following", and she clearly does. Rebecca1990 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for admin consideration whoever closes this afd. Keep this in mind, 76.4.134.147 (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, what do we have here? A WP:WIKIHOUNDING IP? It's really frustrating how me and other editors are often accused of being publicists just because we mostly edit porn articles. If it was some other topic on WP I'm sure no one would say anything. And just for the record, I am not a publicist and I do not have a conflict of interest, in fact, I sort of dislike Christy Mack because I think she is an extremely overrated porn star. But unlike most users on here, I am able to participate in discussions without voting "delete because WP:I just don't like it". I am also able to edit articles with a WP:Neutral point of view. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Rebecca", stop casting aspersions, without any evidence, against editors who disagree with you in deletion discussions. Referring to comments made by established editors is not WIKIHOUNDING -- although your repeated aspersions approach that sort of misconduct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, to imply that a user who focuses on one (large) area has an hidden agenda is just inane and baseless. Nor do I understand what it has to do with the subject at hand, namely Christy Mack. Can you explain? Nymf (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        First of all, I'm not the one who's suggested that "Rebecca" is a publicist here, but it's a suggestion that's been made repeatedly by multiple established editors, and that "Rebecca" until today refused to address. Given their long history of adding promotionally sourced and otherwise unreliably sourced content to BLPs, and, worse, tendentiously denying the existence of obvious sourcing issues while casting aspersions (see, for example, this AFD, where they argued at some length that an item labeled "PRESS RELEASE" was not in fact a press release), it's frankly ridiculous to call the suspicion of COI "absurd and baseless". Second, the issue I raised is "Rebecca's" habit of accusing other editors, wholly without evidence of misbehavior like "WIKIHOUNDING". That's completely indefensible, especially since they wield it as a tactic only to attempt to discourage people who disagree with them from participating in deletion discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I mostly agree with Rebecca1990. I don't think the AVN fan vote win is relevant because fans could get five votes per day, which I think blows its credibility and to my mind, Miss FreeOnes is not significant. But the Venus award is Europe's most signifiant award and XBIZ is one of the big three American awards (AVN and XRCO being the others) and those two alone are notable enough to warrant retaining the article regardless of the fan vote awards. So with her XBIZ win last week, I vote "keep." I agree with 76.4.134.147 in that there are too many promoters hanging out here (and not just in articles about this industry!), but an article on this person is acceptable. Looks to me that the "necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required" are fine now, too. pumik9 (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per pumik9. Nymf (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This AfD was initiated by a very new Wikipedia user that apparently (based on several ongoing discussions in other locations) doesn't know a whole lot of about Wikipedia's notability guidelines, like PORNBIO. There's nothing wrong with using citations from well-established trade magazines in a Wikipedia article. As for the "one citation included in the article (that) would seem to point to Ms Mack having a notability outside of pornagraphic producers, namely the Vice Magazine article 'Hanging Out With Pornstar Christy Mack Made Me Less Scared of Porn'", that citation is merely used (in the article under discussion here) to confirm a few pieces of relatively minor biographical infomation. Which Wikipedia users have or have not edited the article under discussion here is completely irrelevant to this discussion, period.

As for the Kiera King AfD, that unfortunate incident occurred while the PORNBIO inclusion standard was still disputed, and it was merely initiated to try & prove the point that all award nominations should be removed from the PORNBIO standard...as was discussed at length both within that same AfD discussion and here.

The bottom-line is that the subject here has "won well-known and significant industry awards"...including a Venus Award for "Best Actress International" & an XBIZ Award for "Best New Starlet". Guy1890 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also find it interesting that a brand new user would know how to make an AfD, but more importantly, Ms. Mack just won the XBIZ Award for Best New Starlet. BTW, HW, you should know by now that Wikipedia is a battle-free zone, so your usual "casting aspersions" argument (in bold print, even) needs to be retired once and for all. (You stated Rebecca is accusing other editors of acting inappropriately because they disagree with him/her; what do you think you're doing? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no doubt.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 19:26, 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 Redirect to MyRatePlan.com. Protecting seem excessive at this time; if revert warring happens, it can be protected later. To be honest, MyRatePlan.com seems kind of spammy itself, but that's something which could be dealt with in another Afd should somebody wish to go there. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Abbott[edit]

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

My redirect to MyRatePlan.com was reverted: the subject's working for the company is the only thing that could make him notable, but there is no sourcing to prove that he is independently notable. I'm AfDing this to enforce a redirect, if not an outright delete. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Abbott has more than a dozen NYT references listed in this entry, on closer review they are all simply 1-2 sentence quotes he's made in reference to his .com company. None of these references are actually about Abbott, so he fails GTG. Kick him to the curb. BlueSalix (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aforementioned references are not simply 1-2 sentences about his .com company, but rather many quotes on the trends and direction of the cell phone industry. He is quoted all over the media as an authority in the cell phone arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creditcardchaser (talk • contribs) 18:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Creditcardchaser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We'll have to disagree on that then. I don't see anything significant about him in any of them. Could you point it out, maybe? Drmies (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Logan Abbott, his publicist, or one of his employees? I note your only contributions in your history on WP are to his entry. BlueSalix (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies- I added more references that include more information from him. He's interviewed on television in the NBC reference, quoted in the New York Times piece about the trend of no contract cell phone plans, and referenced as an expert in the Kiplinger piece. Make sure to read all the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creditcardchaser (talk • contribs) 00:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (Will you please start signing your name?) I looked at all of them, and only this one article (from U-T San Diego) says anything about him as a person, and it's not much. Sure, he is quoted in a few articles, but always as the owner of that website; he as a person is never discussed, and the mentions are pretty brief. Not everyone who gets quoted a couple of times deserves an article. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MyRatePlan.com. He is not individually notable. There are lots of passing mentions or quotes from him, but nothing significant about him. The only significant coverage about him is the San Diego Union Tribune article, which was not staff-written but rather "special to the U-T" by a freelance writer - in other words, not from an independent reliable source. I have already merged the verifiable information about him to the MyRatePlan article. There is virtually no verifiable biographical information about him; the article even contradicts itself about where he was born. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check that; an IP reverted my addition to MyRatePlan.com. (Maybe they didn't like my pointing out that his parents own MyRatePlan.com - but hey, it was in the source and is one of the very few verified pieces of information we have about him.) If the decision here is to Redirect/Merge, it can be re-added. --MelanieN (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect the redirect. AfD can enforce a redirect when that's the clear consensus. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect. Seems to be solely notable for being a dial-a-quote involved with MyRatePlan.com, no independent coverage of him in any other context. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:23, 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 keep. Per the references given by User:Ruby Murray. (non-admin closure) Ethically ^(Yours) 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggle Ltd[edit]

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

This article is an advertisement for a corporation with a reasonably large turnover and no inherent notability. Fiddle Faddle 14:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - I exhaustively combed the web and could only find this article [[2]] talking about their new interns. Definitely needs to be deleted. Great catch, bro! BlueSalix (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrading to Strong Delete and recommend WP:SALTing as PR-cruft. BlueSalix (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - seems fairly notable, with a lot of good secondary coverage online from WP:RS.

Mainstream press:

Cycling mags:

Upgrading to Strong Keep I've removed the copyrighted promotional junk added by a company employee, and added a history section using the references above (plus another I found from the DT). It certainly meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) with the level of press coverage it's received, and no longer has a promotional tone. Ruby Murray 11:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The sources provided above by User:Ruby Murray demonstrate that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:28, 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 no consensus. As far as policy-based rationales go, the valid parts of the nomination appear to be concerns vis-a-vis WP:BLP1E. Other aspects of the nomination are subjective, and not guideline- or policy-based. WP:BLP1E concerns have been countered by the !vote by User:Frietjes per the subject's appearance on multiple seasons of Survivor. The !vote from User:ApprenticeFan suggests notability, but doesn't specifically delineate how this is so. The "strong delete" !vote by User: Dobbyelf62 is not guideline- or policy-based. Ultimately, there's no consensus in the discussion at this time. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Wesson[edit]

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

I can't believe how all these Survivor bio articles keep showing up again after they've been redirected. I much as I've loved Survivor since I was a boy, I just see no reason to keep some of these articles on the contestants :( Tina is clearly not known for anything other than Survivor, and being a three time contestant doesn't make someone notable. Teaching outdoor survival classes and publishing a book are both good accomplishments, but those things don't automatically constitute encyclopedic notability. She's just another person who's lived a cool life. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 19:39, 5 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 5. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has a little notability after won her first season. ApprenticeFan ^work 14:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Did nothing notable outside of survivor. She appeared three times on the show, which doesn't mean she has to have a page. There's no reason why this page should be kept. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 21:38, 10 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) 00:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep, appeared on multiple seasons, so goes beyond "one event". Frietjes (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: Trying to relist one more time in hope to get more opinions--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dobbyelf62. Suitable for local Survivor wiki, but not here. Brandmeister^talk 15:43, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Gifted Community Center[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. the sources provided are not really third party. and nothing in Chicago's biggest newspaper chicagotribune.com LibStar (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fail WP:N, WP:ORG and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 17 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, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BlueSalix (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No matches for "Chicago Gifted Community Center" with quotes on Google News. All references in article appear to be to CGCC-published content or mere directories. Alleged Sun-Times reference is for a Sun-Times Media site called Good to Know from something called "Sun-Times Custom Media Services" that doesn't seem to be able to say outright whether it's editorially-independent reporting or sponsored content, and isn't about CGCC specifically. --Closeapple (talk) 23:01, 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) 03:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desafio dos Bandeirantes[edit]

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

Article is about a roleplaying game that was allegedly published (self-published?) in Brazil in unknown quantity by a publisher of unknown repute and meeting unknown success for 3 years in the mid 90s. Entry has 0 sources and has a notability tag that has been unresolved for 7 years. A cursory search for RS returns nothing except its Wikipedia entry. There is no more additional information on it in the Portuguese wiki. BlueSalix (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quick google search gets no results to prove Nobility.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Portuguese article provides us with two links to a website that potentially fails wp:rs. One of them is actually based on a blog post. Couldn't find anything relevant in a Google search set to ignore Facebook and blog links.Victão Lopes ^Fala! 19:31, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will Sanders[edit]

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

Vanity article; a music professor with no critical accomplishments. Article has 1 reference (his official university bio) and has had an unresolved notability tag for 5 years. BlueSalix (talk) 11:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would not use the (offensive) term "vanity article" that easily, especially in view of the large number of editors that have worked on this page. Anyway, the article on the Polish WP has more information and also a discography, which may contribute to establishing notability. --Randykitty (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and even the Polish page has zero references ... as for the "large number of editors" - there have been 27 edits in the last 7 years, half of them have come from IP editors and 1/3 from bots ... I don't think anyone will be too scandalized if this gets gone BlueSalix (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that searching for the stuff on the Polish WP could perhaps turn up sources. But as per WP:BEFORE you already did that, I guess... --Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yup BlueSalix (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. Perhaps you should have tried Googling '"Will Sanders" horn': here he is jury member at an important international competition, here is a CD released in 1995 on a reputable label on which he is a soloist, and here is a mention of him being a visiting professor in Krakow. I stopped after the first 10 or so GHits, there's probably more to find. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- full professor at a significant German institution; recordings include solo concertos with important symphony orchestras. The criteria for classical musician inclusion are still debated, but the subject would pass almost all levels. To the nominator: what would a horn player need in his or her accomplishments to pass AfD in your opinion? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree as to what constitutes a "significant institution." From each according to his ability, or whatever. BlueSalix (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mscuthbert and my comments above. --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a couple of additional references attesting to his being a professor at a major institution, and having taught at two others, and to his master classes and membership on juries for important international prizes. I haven't found press coverage but I did find several listings of his master classes and he is listed as an important instructor by others who have gone on to be faculty members at music schools, one of whom specifically refers to his Bayreuth Festival tenure, which should also not be forgotten in assessing his importance in his field. I believe that importance suffices to demonstrate notability; we should not apply superstar standards to classical instrumentalists. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Tone of nomination is regrettable. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. And agree with Northamerica1000 concerning tone of nomination. Unnecessary and unhelpful. Andrewa (talk) 20:13, 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 speedy keep --Mdann52talk to me! 08:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Al Futtaim Group[edit]

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

advertising. Appears to be a non-notable company, as only ref is a profile. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BlueSalix (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider reading WP:PERNOM. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how rude BlueSalix (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudeness wasn't the intention, so apologies if you were offended. Just a heads up that AfD closers may discount idem types of !votes. It's up to you to expound upon your !vote, or not. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close - A company founded in 1992 employing 24,500 employees is going meet WP:GNG. A quick search New York Times The Gulf The Gulf Khaleej Times. There's thousands of other articles on the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close what Jreferee said a company with over 24,000 employees is going to meet WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - significant coverage in reliable sources determines notability, not the number of employees. However, it is more than likely that a company with a large workforce would also have received significant coverage.--ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and more are available. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability on Wikipedia is based upon the availability of sources, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:41, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Gullick[edit]

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

Unsourced - non-notable boxer. The most said in the article was a might have been. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sure, delete him; not notable, etc.BlueSalix (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBOX and only link to his fight record so he also fails WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 19:05, 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 redirect to Little Manhattan. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ray[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

3rd nomination for this article (1st=Keep, 2nd=Redirect to Little Manhattan).

Since the last nomination (and thus, the resulting decision) are close to a year old, I figured it would make sense to re-evaluate the situation as the previous decision is being "overturned" by an editor.

Non-notable actress. Article fails WP:GNG, sources given are all primary sources.

I recommend reinstating the redirect to Little Manhattan or deleting the page all together. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 09:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend KEEPING the page. She is an actress who is notable, having acted in film, television, then film again as recent as 2013. Redirecting her Wikipedia page to a film that contains no information on her is ridiculous. Prior AfD stated that original page should be reinstated if she became "notable". She is classified as an actress, has appeared in multiple mediums, and is represented by an agent. It doesn't get much more "notable" than that. I think Twsx is confusing "notable" with "famous". She has an offical facebook page, official twitter (which states "I do movies"), and most obviously, a page on IMDB stating that she is an active actress available for movies.71.82.209.86 (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as previously. Fails WP:NACTOR: only has a single significant role. Aside from reviews of the film, I can't find much press about her on a quick search[14], though maybe others will have more luck. Having a Twitter or Facebook does nothing to show notability: I could put up a Facebook and Twitter page that says "I'm an actress looking for work" but it wouldn't make me notable. IMDb isn't considered a suitable source for establishing notability either, because its standards are more generous than Wikipedia's. (However, properly referenced material about her could be added to the article Little Manhattan.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To blindly go from "she's starred in film and television" to completely deleting her page is foolish, reckless, and while some believe it may not fit the letter of the law here, it does fit the spirit of Wikipedia. There are a hundred other child actors with one movie credit yet still have an entire page dedicated to them. Why is she being singled out? Again, her being a hirable actress with an agent AND starring in more than one film as well as having multiple roles on television programs provides her with notability. This is not "some guy that was on the news once 8 years ago", this is an actress with multiple roles. Obviously she will not have a huge resume having started her acting career young and still going through school but the fact that she has been in the business in multiple mediums for years speaks for itself. 71.82.209.86 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Little Manhattan and Protect if necessary. Nothing of substance has changed since the last discussion, according to IMDB she has appeared as "Young Woman" in a yet-to-be-released short, but I don't think that's a significant enough role. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:00, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I Fall Back Down - A Punk Rock Memoir[edit]

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

I came across this via a PROD and after cleaning it up a little (you can see the original format here) and searching for sources, I couldn't find anything to show that this indie book passes WP:NBOOK. The original version used various unreliable sources such as merchant links, non-notable blog entries, and social media review sites such as Goodreads, none of which can really show notability. There was an assertion that the book was reviewed through the Glasgow Evening Times, but I can't find anything to back this up. Even if it can be located, all we have are two reviews. This just isn't enough to pass notability guidelines for books. The PROD was removed and the original editor is going to try to find some sources, but I really couldn't find anything out there that would meet the guidelines of WP:RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BlueSalix (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not seem to have gained any serious critical atention.TheLongTone (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 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)} 09:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Granit Arifaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY by a country mile. 11 appearances in a non-WP:FPL, and no GHITS whatsoever on anything close to RS. Created by a known vandal as well, and the one source in the article is clearly for a different player. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per Nom Fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; also likely a hoax. Giant Snowman 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kreshnik Uka[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY by a country mile. One appearance in a non-WP:FPL, and no GHITS whatsoever on anything close to RS. Created by a known vandal as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; also likely a hoax. Giant Snowman 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armend Musa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY by a country mile. One appearance in a non-WP:FPL, and no GHITS whatsoever on anything close to RS. Created by a known vandal as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Lukeno94's reasoning, leaning to speedy delete. There appears to be very little evidence that a football player of this name has played football at any significant level at all. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amusingly perhaps, it was you that declined an A7 CSD in August :) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 22 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; also likely a hoax. Giant Snowman 19:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; at best WP:TOOSOON, at worst a hoax. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perennate[edit]

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

~~Wikipedia is not a dictionary. smithers - talk 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn by nominator @Northamerica1000: thanks for the redirect to the already improved and notable article. That was a good call on your end, I nominated this article at 11PM last night and I should have searched for a page such as Perennation to redirect it to. That was a big mistake on my end. Cheers! smithers - talk 00:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. I've boldly moved this to Perennation. This is a botanical term, rather than a dicdef. The topic also passes WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. Additionally, more sources are available via internet searches.

Johnson, Duncan Starr (1918). The Fruit of Opuntia Fulgida: A Study of Perennation and Proliferation in the Fruits of Certain Cactaceæ. Carnegie Institution of Washington.
Beatley, Janice C. (1970). Perennation in Astragalus Lentiginosus and Tridens Pulchellus in Relation to Rainfall.
Stewart, Fred Carlton (1909). The Perennation of the Clover Dodder, Cuscuta Epithymum Murr.
Randhawa, M.S. (1940). Perennation in Oedocladium Operculatum Tiffany.
Dasgupta, M. K. (1988). Principles of Plant Pathology. Allied Publishers. pp. 225-226. ISBN 8170231922

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Northamerica1000. De728631 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Northamerica1000's good source finds both show that this topic is notable through multiple in depth RS books and that there is plenty of material out there upon which to expand the article beyond a dicdef. --Mark viking (talk) 17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI expanded the article slightly. However, in the process, I found out that the topic matches Storage organ to a large extent, so the outcome could as well be "merge". Now, a question for botanists: is development of storage organs the only means of perennation, or are there other strategies covered by this term? Are e.g. trees said to perennate? No such user (talk) 21:38, 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kovair Software, Inc.[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. Three of the sources are simply entries, not extensive coverage. I can't find anything better. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to support notability. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software company of unclear notability; refs in article are all brief mentions, not significant coverage. A search did not turn up significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 17:02, 24 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. 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]

(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 Speedy keep. Pretty blatantly notable and given the user's edit history, this seems to be someone just trolling. User has been indef'd. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarding[edit]

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

Not notable JujitsuJohn (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep An obviously notable subject. --Mark viking (talk) 04:51, 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. Ged UK 13:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Edmonson[edit]

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

She's a school board member running for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia. Doesn't appear to be a serious candidate, though, as I can't find any significant coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most (if not all) references are either her website or her YouTube channel, and parts of the article are written in a very promotional tone. Jinkinson talk to me 16:26, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Tzadok[edit]

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

Article has no clear claim to notability as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Sources fail to establish WP:N. A quick search on Google failed to produce any evidence of notability. Article was twice nominated for PROD and twice tags were removed on grounds of potential notability. If someone can find in depth WP:RS coverage establishing notability I will happily withdraw my AfD nom. But I don't think articles should be kept on a "maybe it's notable" basis. Notability is a standard that must be proven. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep hell yes the General, Northern Commander AND Southern Commander, Moshe Tzadok (משה צדוק) is VERY notable. I would admit the article in its current state is in VERY poor quality and demands immediate attention. --CyberXRef^talk 02:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Based on the cited source (an Israeli state memorial yizkor page) [15] and my Google-translator-assisted reading of it, this person was a senior official in the Haganah and in the IDF. The yizkor page says he died in 1964. It seems that his name is more often transliterated Moshe Zadok in English. Under that name, he is listed in our Wikipedia article as the first head of the Manpower Directorate, and is mentioned in a number of other articles about Israeli military history. A Google search shows his name (both spellings) turning up in quite a few articles about that subject, but I am not sure how much depth these have about him specifically.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw AfD Nom Based on strong assertions above of notability which I presume will shortly be affirmed with appropriate sources. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:07, 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 procedural close as unnecessary. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The World's tallest monument[edit]

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

This article consists of a single sentence: "The Gateway Arch located in St. Louis, Missouri, USA is the world's tallest monument." This statement does not require its own article, it is entirely covered by the Gateway Arch article. —Josh3580_talk/hist 01:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should this be early closed per WP:Snow? Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as speedy delete A3. --みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A10, rather than A3 and I have retagged the article. I will close this AfD since it is obvious the article will be speedily deleted. Safiel (talk) 05:33, 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) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Ryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not the subject of coverage by unrelated parties. Previously, the best available coverage was apparently a biography published by the military. Since the last AfD, no development on sourcing has happened. This tidbit is obviously the subject's résumé and published by the military itself — it's not suitably reliable for biographical content about living persons. Previous versions included a wholesale copyvio of this source. Now, as a result, no content is supported at all... While the applicable essay-turn-guide (not a guideline) refers to a WP:GNG-based presumption, and states someone will "almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify" if a general officer, however this is not such a case. The guideline still demands significant coverage, and none is jumping out at me. JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources is a problem, but the consensus is that military leaders at this level are in fact notable and worth covering in articles. I can live with that. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he meets WP:SOLDIER #3. He has a very common name, and Google News Archive, the obvious tool for finding sources, is out of service right now. A biography published by the military itself is reliable for basic biographical facts, just as a university's faculty profile is reliable for a professor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I found significant coverage by NBC News in 2009 of his service in Afghanistan. Just as WP:SOLDIER says, a careful search will almost always yield coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Ryan is noted and quoted in the article he is not the primary subject of the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about an international incident that he investigated personally, he is mentioned in the first paragraph, his involvement is reported to be significant, he is quoted at length, and the article links to another article that also discusses his role. This is far beyond a passing mention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Flag officers are considered to be notable for the simple fact of being flag officers. Sources available. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then would brigadier general (retired) Mark Bircher be notable as well? Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If Mark Bircher was an active duty (not just reserve) general officer, then the answer is "yes", Candleabracadabra. I was previously unaware of this redirect to the political campaign. That is the usual practice for political candidates who are not otherwise notable. But if he meets WP:SOLDIER then in my view, he too should have a NPOV article, but not campaign literature masquerading as an article. Given that the election was a week ago and he lost, I would support undoing the redirect. I think that WP:SOLDIER should be a formal guideline but it has not yet achieved that status. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details on his service record or rank at various times in his military career. He retired as a marine reserve brigadier general I believe. I also don't know in what capacity he served in Iraq. If it was with a reserve unit does that matter? Or would a posting to Iraq constitute active duty? And I don't know what his rank was at the time. He also won a Bronze Star and he has also been a Blue Angel pilot. It seems like a close call to me so I was curious to get some input. There was also campaign coverage. The military has a page covering his career ins ome detail taht I believe is cited in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Star isn't relevant to notability; either a MoH or multiple Silver Stars would be. Blue Angel pilot isn't notability in and of itself but probably gives him a big boost with regards to WP:GNG/WP:NPERSON; whereas having stars on the shoulders does, indeed, mean notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a general officer, he is notable per WP:SOLDIER, which although not an official guideline is a standard accepted by most who edit military articles on Wikipedia. And yes, Mark Bircher is notable too for the same reasons (being a reserve officer is irrelevant). I have reverted the change to a redirect there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while WP:Soldier says "In particular, individuals will almost always have sufficient coverage to qualify..." they still need that coverage to meet GNG. If there are sources, would someone add them to the article? GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds that it fails GNG as the only sources provided (to date) are not independent of the subject. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:SOLDIER, as is Mark Bircher. We don't distinguish between regulars and reservists. I have no doubt that we can find information on both of them. Also, military articles can and should be sourced from military sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SOLDIER. He's a flag officer....William 20:36, 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 delete. Ged UK 13:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Papworth[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN only being elected to Bromley Council which is hardly "state/province wide". Also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG as all the references are either trivial coverage, such as election results, or are not independent of the subject. Dpmuk (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to being elected to office there is a range of independent coverage involving Papworth:

Also a set of local news stories:

SheffGruff (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a local officeholder who has been mentioned in some reliable sources. Does not appear to have received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that aren't local. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Local councillors aren't inherently notable, but this one seems to squeak through on account of his other involvements. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the refs and they are all trivial mentions, usually just mentioning his name and nothing more. Szzuk (talk) 21:14, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh–Rwanda relations[edit]

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

the article is based on 3 sources, one of them quite short [16] and I see no evidence of actual notable relations, there is talk of potential and "want to co-operate" type statements than actual co operation, but there is no significant trade, no visits by leaders or ministers, no embassies, no agreements. LibStar (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article should be kept according to Wikipedia's General notability guideline since the references in the article are from reliable, secondary sources and have significant coverage about the topic. Nomian (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you've recycled this argument from another AfD how about actually commenting on these 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the relations are very small. And the small number of sources merely confirm a desire for relations not actual relations. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found it a similar deletion discussion to that one which was finally kept, so I thought to follow the same argument. Did I say anything wrong? Nomian (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - articles need to have at least 2 reliable sources with indepth coverage to pass WP:GNG, this one has 3 of them excluding the short one. --Zayeem ^(talk) 08:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has enough reliable sources. It baffles my why you would want Wikipedia to be unnecessarily smaller. I don't find it in the guidelines you cite any rationale for the deletion of less mainstream articles. Pikolas (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do the sources actually describe any noteworthy relations, the sources merely say there is potential? We don't keep articles for the sake of it, see WP:LOSE and WP:EVERYTHING. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 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.