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. 28bytes (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Lynn[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations, No independent, reliably sourced content. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This one is a no brainer it is a stub that fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails PORNBIO and GNG per nominator's accurate assessment. No reliable source coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 1 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The result was withdrawn. Nominator wanted to attempt speedy deletion instead. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low Income Resources[edit]

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

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

Complete personal opinion essay, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:OR --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Attempting CSD instead --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 23:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This has been re-opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Low Income Resources (2nd nomination). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:22, 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. 28bytes (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Conner[edit]

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

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No awards, just nominations, No independent, reliably sourced content. No reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I concur with the nominator's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine[edit]

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject is already covered in Naturopathy. The article can be summarized in its entirety with one to two sentences. Before I cleaned it up, it was a POV fork for content supportive of Naturopathy, which I suspect was its only use. I would suggest a merge, but there doesn't appear to be any novel content to merge.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; it appears to be a pov-fork. bobrayner (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; pov fork nothing here not covered better in Naturopathy article, much content is unsourced or poorly sourced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support; --Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 31 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) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis flood narrative[edit]

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

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

WP:POVFORK of Noah's ark. Made as a Christian POV-fork of a better article to promote the idea that this is not a flood myth but merely a "flood narrative". jps (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. StAnselm (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No evidence has been presented to back up the claim of a POV fork. In any case, the topic is much larger than that of Noah's Ark. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An encyclopedic topic backed up by ample reliable and verifiable sources establishing the independent notability of the topic. Inherently, this article will overlap with topics such as Genesis (Hebrew Bible), Noah's ark and Flood myth among others, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that. Alansohn (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for now. I don't see any discussion of a WP:SPINOUT on this article's talk page, nor do I see one on the Noah's Ark or Flood myth pages. Surely an WP:RFC on the subject should preceed an WP:AFD. Also, the presumption that the article is a religiously-motivated WP:POVFORK, rather than a WP:CFORK, is a little disturbing. Ignocrates (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Noah's Ark/Archive 13#Page move. Mangoe (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing the link. PiCo's point in that discussion is ...on point: "The Genesis flood narrative is the Hebrew Bible's version of the worldwide flood myth." Ignocrates (talk) 05:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No evidence that this is a Christian driven POV fork. Story and narrative are words used used in describing a great flood and possible connections to the biblical flood story. Multiple sources.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep per above arguments. This is certainly not a fork, let alone a POV fork. There is no evidence to support nominator's interpretation of the article's authors' motives.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yep. That is, keep. The rationale is already fishy--the difference between myth and narrative is fake and vague. There is overlap between the two (and I just scrapped some content the articles shared), but these are two viably separate topics. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article and Noah's Ark pretty clearly follow WP:SUMMARY. POV issues is not a valid reason for deletion, and myth and narrative are synonyms. If someone believes one title is better than the other, the solution is to start a page move discussion not to pursue deletion. VQuakr (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with some trimming to reflect the Hebrew Bible version of events. Til makes that point in the discussion. Ignocrates (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an event that is mentioned in Islam, Judaism and Christianity Is almost certainly notable and is a Pretty clear keep.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notable event mentioned in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nomination makes no sense. There is no evidence whatsoever that this is a POVFORK. Instead, the article describes a famous episode in the Hebrew Bible. Noah's Ark describes one aspect of the story in more detail. -- 101.119.28.200 (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you believe it or not it doesn't matter. Enough people worldwide do believe it and therefore is worthy for inclusion in this encyclopedia. Passes WP:N.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep an event that is mentioned in Islam, Judaism and Christianity Is almost certainly notable. Hafspajen (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and gosh, don't people do a check as provided above, see: "Genesis flood narrative" by Googling (124,000 results) – books (1,040 results) · scholar (77 results), and this is now a WP:SNOW. IZAK (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well said, IZAK Hafspajen (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After 40 days and 40 nights of rain, a little snow is a welcome relief...— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there is now a merge proposal between this article and Noah's Ark - see Talk:Noah's Ark#Merger proposal. StAnselm (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's not really a CFORK, but it is close; and I don't think it's a POV fork either. I do think that Noah's ark should be merged in to this article though; having them as separate articles doesn't work well, a lot of people are linking to Noah's ark thinking that that's where the whole topic is covered, whereas that's just an article on the wooden boat. The article breakdown is not sustainable, but it's not a CFORK. I don't think either article should be deleted, they should be merged. A deletion would be a full history deletion, and that's not what should happen.GliderMaven (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious How do you know what other people think when they read and/or link to an article on Wikipedia? I'm not sure what you're meaning with the "a lot of people" comment.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Don't delete and don't merge the two articles deal with their own subjects, it's perfectly fine as is; this is an encyclopedic worthy topic on its own - it's more notable than all US presidents combined. These AfDs are getting more ridiculous by the day. --CyberXRef^☎ 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy Keep per #1, nominator withdrawn and no other argument for deletion brought forward. Copyvio/clean-up already being discussed on the talk page. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Wright[edit]

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

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

Update: After a review of additional sources, I can see why many editors believe this may meet the notability guidelines. That said, if we move toward a speedy keep on this article, we will need to decide what to do about the plagiarism and material not reliably sourced. Nick Pascal (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails notability requirements. This BLP describes an individual who streams live video of himself playing video games. While he apparently has a prominent role in the video game streaming community, he has not been documented in reliable sources to any extensive degree. Much of the article prose is not properly sourced or is non-encyclopedic in tone. Further delete explanation: The article has a few proper sources, but most of them are links to the subject's Youtube channel. Large chunks of the article are promotional. That is not in itself enough to delete, but having looked at the sources in total, I believe Mr. Wright falls just outside the notability requirements at this time. Upon further research, much of the article in its present state is lifted word-for-word from [1]. This could qualify for a speedy deletion under WP:COPYVIO since the second paragraph under the "Early Life" heading, and the first under "Speed running" are word-for-word copies of that site, while several other portions of the page appear to be close paraphrase. Nick Pascal (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've read WP:CSD#G12 thoroughly? Two sections (which were not introduced to the article until a while after its creation) that violate WP:CV do not automatically make an article meet G12. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, of course. I originally nominated the article over notability concerns, however I was looking at the sources again after other editors disagreed, and I found that the vast majority of the article is plagiarized. I am concerned that simply moving a few words around does not meet Wikipedia policies on original content. Nick Pascal (talk) 22:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Currently suffering from COPYVIO. Comparison: Time of writing, Current. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 22:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Significant coverage in sources considered reliable and independent; subject seems to meet WP:GNG. References include major sources Polygon, Wired, Kotaku, Daily Dot. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with most content issues presented in the nomination but clean-up doesn't equal deletion. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Cosmo has received significant coverage from such major sites such as Wired and the Daily Dot. The youtube sources are only used in some cases to verify run records. I think Cosmo is notable enough to warrant a page due to the massive following he has and his trailblazing in the Speedrun Community as well as being an example of earning money through the internet in unique ways.Hamza725 (talk) 21:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources will be improved, I'm still working on the article Thehack771 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I agree with the content issues I am surprised by the amount of dedicated coverage Cosmo has received. I was expecting those sources to just mention him in passing but they gave significant attention to him, and I feel as though the amount of coverage he has received, in addition to his undoubtedly important role in expanding the niche speedrunning community more into the mainstream makes him notable.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are adequate sources to ensure proper notability. I've added tags for clean-up to help encourage editors to assist in solidifying and establishing CosmoWright's notability. Per WP:BLP and WP:NOTE, along with WP practices of helping to nurture and improve rather than immediately jump to shut down, the least we can do is allow the editors and page creator ample time to establish notability and improve the article. This was made without the help of reviewers and as such, will require a bit of time to iron out the edges. Additionally, I will lend my assistance in establishing notability. --Slazenger (Contact Me) 04:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Throwing in my two cents, if he was the founder of SpeedRunsLive and is a prominent community member, that definitely is more notable than just a random person on the internet. Stylistic issues are one of the biggest concerns here, and changing it would be a project for anyone who wants to help out. NicatronTg (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and propose that this article be stubified back to a lead statement with only supporting reliable sources as the content after the lead is almost entirely unsourced. See talk Flat Out let's discuss it 05:02, 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. Will recreate as a redirect per 74*'s suggestion, as this article has been around for awhile and "pointing-in" links are quite plausible. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of The Monsters in the Morning[edit]

Songs of The Monsters in the Morning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

2nd nomination -- first was together with The Monsters in the Morning (2nd nomination). Absolutely no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Clear example of WP:SPIP. Unless an independent source is found covering this subject, I'm not even open to redirecting. Prefer delete, but open to redirect/merge for the sake of consensus. Levdr1lp / talk 19:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Update per Hasteur and anon IP -- there's nothing to merge. Levdr1lp / talk 21:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Merge to The Monsters in the Morning. Songs on this list lack coverage in 3rd party sources. Better off merged into the parent article. Probably should have never been split off into a dedicated article in the first place. RadioFan (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, there aren't any sources independent of the subject. Not even a passing mention from a local Orlando publication. Surely there must be coverage of some kind if we're going to merge this content. Levdr1lp / talk 20:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep or Merge and improve. Since the parent article has already survived AfD, this is just valuable extra content that can be used to better broaden the scope and breadth of a notable topic.Student7 has changed my mind. BlueSalix (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to The Monsters in the Morning, though I'm not sure what sourced content could go to the parent show once that is done. Hasteur (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC) No content from the subpage is reasonable to merge into the master. But I do think the redirect needs to happen. Hasteur (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability. Wikipedia does not and should not list all songs ever written by everybody. Maybe the top 10%? Or one percent? These appear to be in the bottom of any list, for lack of recognition, publication, and sales. Student7 (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove content then Redirect, plus also remove discography-table in parent-article. Do not merge content, do not pass Go, do not collect $200 in CD royalties. And I say this as a pretty hefty inclusionist, but WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:SPIP both apply in spades. I suggest redirect for the sake of DahReadership, because there might be off-wiki hyperlinks to the "songs" article, which we should send to the parent-article on "the monsters" (wikipedia should not merge the song-stuff into "the monsters" because it fails WP:NOTEWORTHY ... but the parent-article has an external link... where the CD stuff *can* be found).

  I searched for music-reviews at the last AfD. There was one(1) ISBN book on amazon which gave coverage, but it is a reprint of several wikipedia pages (and besides was self-published by Beta). "Technically", these songs have gotten radio-play, on FM and XM, but only from the owners of the content, not from *independent* radio stations that I could tell. None of the articles I read ever mentioned the songs, except a couple of blogs, and even most of the blogs ignored them. The coverage the show gets in WP:RS says the are funny and crude; no mention of singing, good or bad, did I see. That said, if someone with the time to search on each *song-title* were to come up with some WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions, I'd be happy to auto-change my vote to recommend a merge of any such newly-sourced-material, at that point. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 12:20, 31 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. slakr^\ talk / 11:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swenzy[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:CORP, probable WP:HOAX John Nagle (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The discussion at Talk:Swenzy describes the problems in detail. In brief, this was originally a promotional article, and WP:COI and WP:SPA issues were raised. After several editors looked for better sources, it was discovered that 1) the company has no verifiable existence as a company, 2) their "registered trademark" isn't registered with the USPTO or WIPO, 3) their business is creating fake web sites, hoaxes, fake "likes" and Youtube views, and other "black hat" search optimization techniques, and 4) their "About" page points back to the Wikipedia article. They have lots of web references, but they're mostly of their own making. There's so much fake content associated with this business that we can't sort out the real from the fake. In any case, they don't verifiably meet the business criteria for WP:CORP. In other words, this is spam. Spam with a lot of effort behind it, but spam. John Nagle (talk) 19:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I have addressed the issues with the article at Talk:Swenzy so I won't repeat them here. Far too many problems, should probably have been WP:G11 soon after creation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but strip to verifiable information, no matter how slim such might be. Swenzy, SocialVEVO, and whatnot have been extensively written about. It's an organization that is known for extensive hoaxes and false information, so it's not unusual that the information provided by the company itself is unreliable and/or outright false. Their notability stems from their engagement in activities that basically amount to fraud, like most of our articles on hoaxsters and spammers, which we don't delete just because the subject themselves is not reliable. See also: Remember the 13th, an article on one of Swenzy's better known hoaxes that I did some work on to remove unverifiable statements. Gigs (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not fulfilling WP:CORP.94.194.24.46 (talk) 07:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Collins (politician)[edit]

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

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

This individual has repeatedly stood for election, but never won. WP:POLITICIAN discourages articles for unelected candidates. All the reliable citations in this article refer to her electoral campaigns, which are covered by other articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Week keep The sorces are enough to prove notability under WP:GNG however it does fail WP:POLITICIAN.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many unelected candidates pass WP:GNG in the sense that there are multiple RS articles about them, but the reasoning, as I understand it, behind WP:POLITICIAN is that if all the coverage is about their candidacy(/ies), then it should be covered by articles on those elections. Are there any sources on this individual beyond election coverage? The only source I can see in the article that isn't election coverage is the last one, and that does not appear to meet WP:RS. Bondegezou (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Once again, WP:POLITICIAN displays its bias against UK & US politicians from outside the main two parties. Under an electoral system that is so firmly first-past-the-post, there are a great many notable politicians who don't get elected. Twenty years ago they were Greens, this year it's UKIP. Her role within the party is, I would suggest, an indication of notability in itself.

We are here to be an encyclopedia offering credible, sourced information about topics of note and interest. Jane Collins is of sufficient interest within UK politics (and sadly so, for I despise UKIP) to warrant coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Can I ask what "role within the party" you mean? The article says she's a "regional constituency manager", which doesn't seem particularly significant or notable. (Only two Wikipedia articles contain that phrase: this one and Phil Hobson (Welsh LibDem, and has been elected to something), so it's not like Wikipedia is full of articles on regional constituency managers in the main two parties!) Or do you mean that she's top of UKIP's regional list for Yorkshire and the Humber (European Parliament constituency)? I would agree that Collins has a good chance of becoming an MEP, but Wikipedia is a not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and she isn't an MEP yet. Other list toppers for that constituency don't have articles: there isn't one for Marlene Guest, who tops the BNP list (and the BNP won as many seats as UKIP in that constituency last time), or for Andrew Cooper, who tops the Greens list. What it comes down to for me is that the only reliable source citations given for this person are in the context of candidacies for elections that already have their own articles. We cannot offer "credible, sourced information about topics of note and interest" if there aren't any credible sources. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild preference for Keep on the grounds that she heads a UKIP regional list for this year's EU elections which gives her sufficient notability within UKIP.Graemp (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as we do with many serial perennial candidates. Bearian (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North American Specialty Hot Sauce[edit]

North American Specialty Hot Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. I'm also concerned with the vague criterion for inclusion ("can be, but are not always found in North American supermarkets" and "specialty hot sauce"). Finally, the column "Heat level and purpose" is completely original research) Pichpich (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom and the article fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrd10 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nomination: unreferenced and unnecessary fork of List of North American hot sauces. Ruby Murray 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby Murray; to save this, the article's creator (or someone else) would need to articulate a compelling reason why this new list is not an unnecessary fork from List of North American hot sauces. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely redundant to List of North American hot sauces. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing but a fork of the substandard List of North American hot sauces. The user is already adding the same material to that article. Meters (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This list was created because there are hundreds of manufactured specialty brands in North America. The North American Hot Sauce list is misleading because it states "common in North American supermarkets" how does the author know what is common in each supermarket? The North American Hot Sauce List aims to promote major brand products and is therefore factually misleading. My goal was to create a list that encompasses any and all FDA approved businesses in North America that make and distribute a product that can be referred to as "Hot Sauce" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpob630 (talk • contribs) 14:40, January 30, 2014‎ (UTC)

above copied from Talk page by Meters (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 31 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. 28bytes (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thamsanqa Jantjie[edit]

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

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

Per WP:BLP1E. Subject is only notable for one event, that of messing up the sign language at an important event. He claims he had trouble signing due to mental illness. The rest of the article reads like an attack page, the two named sections are "Life before notoriety" and "Reports of criminal past", which are no more than trivia as far as Wikipedia is concerned. If the trivia is removed, it leaves little more than a few lines about his performance at the funeral, which could easily be included in that article. BLP1E applies strongly for articles such as this one. Martin451 16:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Martin451 16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Martin451 16:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLP1E. We already have an article for the event which is the correct place for any encyclopedic information in this regard. If it wasn't for the event nobody would know who he is, and any other personal information published about him should be done with extreme caution to avoid WP:BLP violations. HelenOnline 16:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the interpreter is not notable independently of the Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela article.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or status quo ante (restore the redirect). Textbook WP:BLP1E, and while there's surely lots of sources out there that mention this person, that isn't a valid argument to overcome 1E concerns. We already have coverage of the incident in another article, that is sufficient. Tarc (talk) 13:16, 31 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. ...as an independent article, fails WP:N. slakr^\ talk / 03:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SS Jairo Mora Sandoval[edit]

SS Jairo Mora Sandoval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD - no reason given. Article fails to credibly assert notability of the subject. All sources outside the article that mention the subject date to June 2013. Even SSCS itself claims it "will be" unveiled in August, but there is nothing since June so there is no evidence the vessel actually exists. Even a recently added reference does not mention the subject name, only "JMS 77", which is not mentioned in the article, so it's WP:SYNTH to link the two. AussieLegend (✉) 04:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New details emerging, statement from Paul Watson specifically naming the ship Here. Could be possible to set the article aside until we have more information E.G. confirmed picture. --Artemisni (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for WP:CRYSTAL. Entire article mentions the name of the vessel but absolutely no details about the acquired vessel itself. It's not likely it would have the prefix SS (Steam Ship) as few steam powered vessels remain in active service. Article can be recreated if and when a vessel is actually acquired and named. Blue Riband► 06:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If arguing that SS is an inappropriate prefix then could also be said the Sea Shepherd vessels with M/Y prefix are also inappropriate due to non-recreational nature. Ship is in active duty already and named, only picture and specs absent which will be released after its first arrest according to Watson. Agreed that the article could be recreated then. Artemisni (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The existing ships are verifiably registered as motor yachts so the MY prefix is appropriate for them. There are no verifiable registration details for this vessel. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The vessel is a motor yacht of 14m length, thus outside the scope of WP:SHIPS. She has the MMSI Number 235101489 and the callsign 2EUX3. Currently off Dakar, Senegal. Mjroots (talk) 12:35, 13 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)} 11:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect to Neptune's Navy. Redirects are cheap and a one-line mention of the ship there is appropriate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep; while outside the scope of WP:SHIPS, the registrant (Sea Shepherd) is notable enough for its unusual use of ships that the vessel otherwise merits inclusion. BlueSalix (talk) 21:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited so the vessel needs to be notable on its own. While vessels such as the Ady Gil, Steve Irwin and Bob Barker are all notable in their own right, this vessel lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:22, 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. slakr^\ talk / 11:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preston Long[edit]

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

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

Article is written by Preston Long's publicist (who admitted so here: [3], after we thought it was an autobiography by Long himself. Still is, just written by proxy. Per WP:COI, WP:AUTOBIO, this ought to be deleted as a vanity piece.

Further, article subject does not meet notability standards per WP:GNG ColonelHenry (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by almighty coincidence, this guy's book plopped through my letterbox this morning. He's a "whistleblower" on chiropractic and his recently published book has been getting some coverage. Not sure about notability ... will dig and follow up ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In PMID 20642715 his court testimony as a chiropractor is mentioned.
• He seems to have a couple of passing mentions in other journal articles; good coverage in a couple of fairly high-profile skeptic blog posts (e.g. here).

• Comment This could be a borderline case. The question is whether he has enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:PEOPLE (and WP:ACADEMIC, probably). I'm uncertain about the aforementioned blog post, since it's a self-published source. Some of the other sources currently listed seem dubious to me as well. --Drm310 (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it looks a bit dodgy; maybe something here could be merged to Chiropractic or one its associated articles. I'll dig a bit more ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am willing to help try to get this article into shape. Let's give it a few more days. Within reason, some types of self-published, primary sources, are allowed in such biographies, and in fact are pretty much required at times. I've known about him for many years, and he's certainly known within chiropractic circles, so that type of notability is worth considering. Notability outside the profession isn't necessarily a requirement for an article. I suspect chiropractic publications will provide a rich source of his writings and also the backlash against him from offended chiropractors. Threats against him are likely unpublished, so we won't be able to use them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment [See my follow-up below.] His first two non-fiction books are self-published. The third one is published by American Council on Science and Health (I suggest reading this section carefully), whose "review" is listed as a reference. Observe the dearth of library holdings at WorldCat. His novel is likewise self-published. Frankly, all the sources are dubious, even this one which is basically a blog and not peer-reviewed. Several are written by Long himself + another blog post, and a link to www.vocact.com which does not verify that he "was voted Chiropractor of the Year in 2009 by the Victims of Chiropractic Abuse", even if that were a notable "award", which it's not. So far it passes neither WP:GNG nor WP:PROF nor WP:AUTHOR. Despite some recent copyedits, it still contains large chunks copied verbatim from his Amazon blurb. Duplication Detector. If the AfD decision is to keep it, it will need a fundamental re-write. Voceditenore (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the interim, I've found and added a few decent references to the article. I've also done some pretty major copy-editing to remove the PR-blurb tone (and copyvio) and restructured the information. I've added a some more information (with references) and have removed some assertions for which there are no references available and unlikely to be. I'm now sitting on the fence temporarily. I suggest that those who have suggested deletion take a look at the article in its new state. Voceditenore (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I second that emotion. After all, if we're good wikipedians, we should be seeking to build, not destroy, so we should hope this works out. If it doesn't, then nuke it, but not before then. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find any notability that wasn't a result of PR. One would think that if he'd been involved in all those court cases on a controversial subject, there would be some press coverage. But no. John Nagle (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 19:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Skepticism. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of the independent in-depth sourcing that would allow us to write a verifiable and neutral article and that would allow the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hey, he's in Marquis' Who's Who!! And he's an avid hunter!! And he paid some vanity publishers to produce his books. Do I need to say more? --Randykitty (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Randykitty, the committee does not approve of sarcasm. It's not as dangerous as irony, but it is still unacceptable. We expect you to flog yourself severely for it. For the committee, Drmies (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bowing my head in shame... Will floss flog... --Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Going to Neutral for now, awaiting proper sourcing, which seems possible. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought perhaps he might be notable as an author, but none of his books are in more than 8 libraries, which for popular books on health amounts to zero impact. I don't think there will be anything substantial to source. If the books were reviewed, that didn't in this case make them notable. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I lean delete, but his two Peer Reviewed Articles have not been discussed here (both are reviews, not studies). I am not familiar with the two journals so I am not sure if they meet WP:Notability (academics).

1. Long was sole author on the first article which was publish in the Journal for Healthcare Quality.
2. Long was co-author on the second article which was published in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics.

So a PhD associate professor with two peer-reviewed articles (need to check journal quality) and one published book of limited circulation. I could see a possible keep, but I am soft delete at the moment. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Publishing only two articles is not particularly impressive, especially for an associate professor. Many of our subjects publish hundreds. And in any case it is not the fact that the subject published something, nor even the number of publications, that matters, but rather their impact (usually measured in citations). Google scholar finds only five citations for "Stroke and Spinal Manipulation" and only one for "Keeping Junk Chiropractic Out Of Court". That is far below the usual standards of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that is the normal citation rate for the field (per: Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Citation_metrics). Like you, I assume these are low, but I don't know this field or these journals, so for all we know, this is a normal citation impact for a Chiropractor. After all, the critique is that they don't do science or acknowledge scientific critique so we would need some normative number to compare. Additionally, I don't know how well Chiropractor journals are covered in Google Scholar or PubMed which could mean that he is cited a lot more but it's not represented in those to engines. I am leaning delete, but I think someone who's researched these journals better should weigh in before the article is deleted. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 20:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've read the article, looked at refs, and the discussion above. My conclusion is that he doesn't qualify for inclusion under WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC. (His latest book, in which he supposedly makes those groundbreaking confessions, is held in just two libraries [4]. His 2002 book in just six [5]. His PRESTON method book in just one [6].) Coverage in "high-profile skeptic blog posts" doesn't seem to qualify per WP:GNG and more importantly self-published blogs can't be used as sources per WP:BLPSPS. Also, if the WorldCat data is correct, Stephen Barrett is a co-author to Long's latest book, so Barrett's coverage of Long is therefore not so independent. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stuck With Arthur[edit]

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

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

Does not meet notability guidelines Skrogle (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BAND, generally promotional and full of unsourced POV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no significant coverage found in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND.  Gong show 05:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. slakr^\ talk / 11:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin[edit]

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

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

Only good source is an paper published by it's own creator. The Cunningham chain records do indeed exist, but are merely trivial pieces. A couple of world records in something that the general, non-mathematical, minded public isn't likely even aware of isn't enough for notability to be established.

Last discussion ended in a no cocensus. I doubt it will happen again this time. This article might assert notability, but it's not enough to get over the hurdle of notability. Citation Needed | Talk 13:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's someone talking about how amazing the proof-of-work is: Primecoin by Vitalik Buterin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.219.252.253 (talk) 14:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable. Shii (tock) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but requires editting. TomokoFuji (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is a lot of money in this altcoin, above 10million. however i agree this coin is more of a background currency. No reason to remove a page though, no harm.TomokoFuji (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: TomokoFuji has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet (see investigation). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 08:44, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as notable, but unverifiable. Epicgenius (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2014 (UTC}
• Delete for failing WP:SIGCOV. I see citations of Cunningham chains, lists of exchange rates, blogs with passing mention of the currency. Notability not established. Blue Riband► 02:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does the current article fail WP:SIGCOV with references to articles with the subject in the title from major sites like The Register and Business 2 Community? Please describe which criteria in that list it fails to satisfy. 84.55.98.173 (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Nice amount of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - very limited secondary coverage, most of which is brief and in passing. May be worth mentioning its records with Cunningham chains in the cryptocurrency article, though. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added articles from The Register, Ars Technica, Business 2 Community, and Data Center Knowledge with non-trivial mention of the currency. I can't say if that's enough to satisfy the notability and verifiablity criteria, but I think so. 84.55.98.173 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cryptocurrency. My view is we don't need a page for each stock in Crypto. Just have a list with important features included will do. V-apharmd (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: V-apharmd has been indefinitly blocked as a sockpuppet per the results of this SPI. Benboy00 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you may be misunderstanding what cryptocurrencies are. They do not fit the definition of a "stock" by any stretch of the imagination. Trinitresque (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 84 has added good sources, and it already had good secondary sources before. KonveyorBelt 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article now clearly demonstrates notability using reliable secondary sources. The original nominator never elaborated on how this article is not notable. Trinitresque (talk) 18:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The sources seem to demonstrate notability. Huey2323 (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not withdrawing the nomination. I do not feel that it is enough to establish notability. Business 2 Communicate is a business blog, and blogs aren't reliable sources. Ars Technicia only mentions Primecoin for about a sentence, and The Hacker News looks like a blog isn't a reliable source either. The Register has two articles on the coin, so what? Sure, that might be reliable, but you can't base an entire article on two news sources alone. Most of these keep votes aren't elaborating how this coin "clearly establishes notability" through two blogs and two news pieces off The Register. Citation Needed | Talk 23:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a book that is discussing Primecoin's proof-of-work system. What more do you want? Looking at your other contributions (Dogecoin in particular), I'm afraid there's a conflict of interest here, not a lack of notability. 84.55.98.173 (talk) 21:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book seemed to be self-published, which is not considered a reliable source. I have also edited several cryptocurrency–related articles, and while I too try to be conscious of possible conflicts of interest, merely editing related articles does not indicate such a conflict. I have voted to keep some articles and ditch others, but I try to state my reasons clearly and objectively. The final ruling is not simply based on a vote count, but is supposed to consider the merits of the arguments. ––Agyle (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its use of primes and the records set there makes it notable, as does its market cap. — Mini-Geek ^(talk) 23:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree in the informal sense of the word notable (PrimeCoin really is a cool idea!), Wikipedia has specific criteria that have to be met in order to establish notability for an article. Neither novelty nor market capitalization are considerations. (See WP:GNG or WP:CORP for info). ––Agyle (talk) 09:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well known and well referenced article.WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the sources provided are better, but they're still either trivial or not from reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:15, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP; reliable sources providing significant coverage are too few (2?) and too weak. Almost all the sources in the article were primary sources (written by the creator of the coin), or self-published or otherwise non-reliable sources. Of the remaining five citations about Primecoin, two are about Primecoin causing a temporary shortage in server rentals, and two are about a hacking exploit targeting Primecoin miners, which is somewhat incidental coverage. The only non-incidental coverage I've seen about the topic are:
  • Buterin, Vitalik (8 July 2013). "Primecoin: the cryptocurrency whose mining is actually useful". Bitcoin Magazine. Coin Publishing Ltd.
  • Gilson, David (10 July 2013). "New currency Primecoin searches for prime numbers as proof of work". CoinDesk. CoinDesk Ltd.

I consider both of these reliable sources for citing facts, but they are weak reliable sources compared to more established publications like the Wall Street Journal or New York Times as indicators of notability. I do not accept market-capitalization-based arguments, as it is not part of any notability guidelines, market cap is subject to manipulation in lesser-traded currencies, and the degree of fungibility of the currency is not established by any reliable source. ––Agyle (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 03:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Burlington SC[edit]

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

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

Essentially empty article about a team in a non-professional league. Does not meet Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Notability or WP:N. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sure, why not BlueSalix (talk) 16:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a team in the top-level of Canadian soccer, seems notable. GiantSnowman 19:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The league is no longer sanctioned by the FIFA-recognized body [7] and to call it the top-level in Canada is a misnomer as it's 1) not a professional league and 2) it's the third division, behind MLS and NASL, both of which have teams in Canada. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the league's future is indeed in doubt, and it may not be sanctioned in 2014. However it was sanctioned in 2013, which this team played in. The league is semi-professional (very semi to be fair), and is the top level of non-fully professional soccer in Canada. I can't think of a single other country where we'd not consider teams in the top level of non-fully professional as notable. In the UK we consider the top 8-levels of non-fully professional soccer notable. I don't think we're anywhere near the line here. These are real teams, with real players, in stadiums with paid attendance. Nfitz (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GS and Nfitz. WP:FOOTYN consensus is that teams in top flight national competition are notable, they do not have to be fully professional. Article needs improving not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment THE LEAGUE IS NOT THE TOP FLIGHT! It never has been and it never will. It's like the fifth division in England. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So? Teams in the fifth division (Conference National) in England are notable. I believe teams in the 10th division in England (so to speak) are notable. Nfitz (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'm inclined to agree with Walter Görlitz on this. WP:FOOTYN presumes a European league structure, which does not exist in Canada. While the CSL was the closest thing to a top league organized by the Canadian Soccer Association, calling it a national league is complete misnomer, given how regionally concentrated the league is. (All the clubs are within at most 400km of each other, in country that spans about 6500km.) More importantly, the club fails WP:GNG pretty comprehensively. I lived in southern Ontario, where the league is based, for the better part of ten years, but only found out that it even existed through editing Wikipedia, that's how little coverage it receives. This club does not appear to be an exception. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Based on Sir Sputnik's !vote and the fact that if fails WP:GNG considerably. JMHamo (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Matches are reported on in newspapers. Meet WP:GNG - [8] [9]. Some games get TV coverage - [10]. It's not fully professionaly, put it's semi-pro, and as such gets media coverage. I think your mistaking this for a pub league. Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Have you read what you've linked here? It definitely doesn't meet GNG's requirement of "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail This is just routine coverage (coverage used loosely) in the local press. JMHamo (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Two issues with the "TV coverage". The coverage is a local cable channel. That's all. And the copy on the page is out-dated. It indicates "The current CSL champions are Toronto Croatia" when 1) the league is so disorganized that the current champion hasn't been added to http://www.canadiansoccerleague.com/pastchampions.htm 2) the champion is SC Waterloo. This clearly shows how important the CSL is to this local-access station. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Local cable station? It's carried on the Rogers cable throughout Ontario. They have millions of subscribers. It's a huge penetration. The league is in a state of disorganization and collapse - there's no question about that. That's not the issue though. Given the amount of media attention the collapse and desanctioning the league has had, I'd think that itself implies notability!

• Yes, local cable. It's not on SportsNet. It's not on TSN. It's a local cable channel. Even TVO gets better ratings. But again, it is only Ontario and not Manitoba west or Quebec east. Not national syndication. It's a local cable station. The number of subscribers to the cable service is not the issue, it's the number of viewers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good grief ... far better penetration than some of the national Sportnet channels I get on cable - such as Sportsnet World 9 ... and probably more viewers too! Still, that's not the point. I'm simply pointing out that it's not just a small-town cable sytem, but a cablesystem (cablesystems actually as Cogeco simulcast the Rogers broadcast) with more customers than many countries have people ... such as Ireland. TV broadcasts aside, the team meets GNG on print coverage. Nfitz (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. It is a small-town cable system since each location decides whether to air a game or run its emergency city council meeting. Ultimately, without ratings numbers this broadcast is not notable and the attention it gets from its "network" is clearly lacking since the previous season's winner has not been updated two months on.

And besides, no one is arguing that the league is not notable, we're discussing the team here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  13:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete No 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lacks the significant coverage to establish notability. The coverage available are match reports in local community papers, and the television coverage is through cable access channels. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Same reasons as Fenix_down . Very disappointed to see that articles like this are being put forward for deletion especially as all the other teams in 2013 Canadian Soccer League season are included. We are simply too officious and inflexible with very little thought or respect for the original editors. The end result will be that further Wiki Editors will jump ship - http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ League Octopus 19:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the worthiness or otherwise of the league is irrelevant if the team doesn't meet WP:GNG, which this one doesn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• WP football/soccer coverage in Canada is fundamentally flawed because there is not a national cup competition (normally used as a key criteria WP:FOOTYN). It is utter nonsense that a third tier CSL club is being deleted when every effort should be made to improve the article. For those who might wish to follow this option at a later date I refer you to http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports13/13csl000.htm as a starting point. League Octopus 14:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's utter nonsense is that you continue to call this a third-tier club. I will remind you that the league is not sanctioned so it's not on any tier. Even last year, the league could not be compared with a third-tier team in any other nation. The league's champion would lose to a fifth-tier team in England, Spain, Germany, Italy or France. Again, it's not about the league but the team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From afar Canadian soccer only has:

Tier 1 MSL - Montreal Impact, Toronto FC, Vancouver Whitecaps FC

Tier 2 NASL - FC Edmonton, Ottawa Fury

Just 5 teams!!! Why take out teams at the next level down - which appears from a normal perspective to be the main tier in reality (and yes there are admin probs at the moment)? It would have been so easy to have improved the Burlington SC article bringing it up the standard of other CSL club articles. For me this deletion exposes the deficiencies of Wikipedia. League Octopus 09:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Only five fully professional teams. The "next level down" is no longer this league as the CSL is not sanctioned. Yes, let's add every amateur team in Canada. That's a great idea. The other CSL club articles are of poor standards and this article already meets their standard. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way the issue is being addressed we will be left with 5 soccer club articles in Wikipedia for Canada! I prepared an essay WP:NCLUB a couple of years ago to try and overcome the dreadful inconsistencies in Wikipedia's soccer coverage across the globe. The issue whether CSL is sanctioned or not at the moment is a red herring. CSL was I believe affiliated to CSA in 2013 and they will soon be firmly "put back into line" by CSA/FIFA (with reference to a similar situation in Uganda last season). This issue of CSL deletions ought to be properly addressed by WT:FOOTY. League Octopus 15:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footy didn't write WP:GNG and NCLUB is written with the European club systems in mind. The only question we must ask is if the team is notable, not if the league is.

Third division teams in Europe are professional in larger football nations and semi-professional in smaller nations. In Canada, they're entirely amateur. Young players who can't or have no desire to break into a professional league play there and professionals who are retiring play there. Again this isn't about the league but this one team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We will always disagree on this issue - refer

Canadian Soccer League League Octopus 20:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll remind you that you're not on the ground here and are not really certain what the league is like. Just because you can wager on matches doesn't make it a notable league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions of this nature will always reflect whether a contributor has a genuine interest and passion for semi-professional soccer or whether the issue is looked at purely in terms of WP:GNG. With video and photo coverage and stats one can certainly can a "strong feel" for what facilities are like on the ground. The bottom line is that there is a pitiful number of Wikipedia articles covering soccer clubs in Canada - Category:Soccer clubs in Canada by province or territory - many of which fail WP:GNG. The removal of the Burlington SC article adds another tier for deletion. It is so depressing. League Octopus 10:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This league is not even semi-professional. The reason that there is a pitiful number of Wikipedia articles covering soccer clubs in Canada is because it's not a notable sport here. If you want a strong feel for what it's like, reach up into the air and close your hands. If there's anything there, then try again. If there's nothing there: that's what you have for soccer in Canada. I say that as a fan of the sport and a Canadian. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our difference Walter is that when I reach up into the air I find "stardust". What is not notable to a Canadian can be very special to soccer enthusiasts living elsewhere in the world. This discussion has helped me to understand and appreciate the differing viewpoints. League Octopus 09:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You have long arms if you can reach stars when you reach up. You probably also need a roof. Soccer notability has been defined and there are no professional players in this unsanctioned third division league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Calling this league "top flight" is badly misleading, and there is no evidence of meeting GNG here. As Walter said, this may simply be too soon. If the league and the club take off, it might be worth revisiting the issue. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, let me offer a modification of WP:HAMMER: "If the name and squad list of a future soccer team are not yet known, the team is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia." --BDD (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the relevance of that? It's not a future team, they played last season. Nfitz (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. The article is apparently quite out of date, unless this club found a way to play without a squad (which would admittedly be extraordinary, probably worth an article). --BDD (talk) 05:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://canadiansoccerleague.com/teams/burlington.asp they did have a squad but their official site is erroring and the league doesn't list one either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of their squad can be identified from these two links - http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports13/13csl025.htm and http://www.rocketrobinsoccerintoronto.com/reports13/13csl057.htm. I note that the first game had an attendance of about 250 and was broadcast live on Rogers Community channel for those who lived in Brampton and local area. League Octopus 10:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is their official CSA article doesn't match their current roster? And what was the viewership on the local access channel? No ratings because it's not a real network. It's mandated that they show community events. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I note that there are a number Rogers TV stations covering the Ontario area. By way of comparison my local club in England - Long Melford F.C. (English tenth tier) - has average attendances of 57 and does not ever receive any TV coverage (including news extracts). The squad is not listed on the league website but is included on the club website. In my view imposing excessive restrictions on WP soccer coverage for Canada compared with other countries is distorting WP's world-wide club coverage. It seems absurd that WP can cover the league clubs in say Aruba but not in the CSL in Canada. League Octopus 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple Rogers stations because it's mandated that each city has its own.

Once again, this isn't about the CSL in Canada, which is an unsanctioned league, it's about the club, which clearly lacks notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mal Madrigal[edit]

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

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

Non-notable band. The only borderline reliable source I can find about the band or its leader (Steve Bartolomei) in lazy-i, an Omaha music blog. Pburka (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  13:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete fails WP:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete total lack of RS affirms failure of GNG BlueSalix (talk) 21:13, 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. slakr^\ talk / 11:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XRAY Model Racing Cars[edit]

XRAY Model Racing Cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Overly promotional to one company, under-sourced as to notability.

This might meet notability as a manufacturer article, but I'm finding it very hard to justify so much unsourced detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see no 3rd party sources to prove notability.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete looks like an advert. LibStar (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 31 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. 28bytes (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who's closest[edit]

Who's closest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Page created 2004. Words fail me.... Emeraude (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no explanation really necessary. It should be noted that there are no hits at Google Books that predate the article. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 16:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:MADEUP that somehow survived 10 years (June 16, 2004). Is this a record? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it is a hoax in the strict sense. The article's creator probably did play this once on a long car trip... הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I, too, am impressed that this survived for ten years. Maybe we should print out this article and bronze it? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:15, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not quite ten years yet. Perhaps we should suspend this AfD until June 16 for the full 10 year anniversary to pass!? Emeraude (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 31 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) -- Shivam Setu (U-T-C) 18:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adi Irani[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines for actors or film and tv personalities. ColonelHenry (talk) 07:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article. IMDB source for the article has been provided. apart from that other relaible sources has also been provided. it meeets wikipedia guidelines with third-party reliable sources--Nehapant19 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is not an acceptable source since it is user-generated. WP:RS/IMDB--ColonelHenry (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Bad nomination, ignored the presence of a The Times of India reference this one in the article, at least check, what's the hurry?.--Ekabhishek^talk 03:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Agree with Ekabhishek. The one reference that was already present at the time of AfD verifies most of his filmography. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Callison[edit]

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

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

Non-notable indivudual lacking non-trivial support. WP:TOOSOON applies. reddogsix (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm on the fence about this one: this young actor already has significant accomplishments, including multiple significant credits, and he's won a Young Artist Award as well as two additional nominations. Not much in the way of press coverage, though. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - already fulfils the criteria for notability, nominated 3 times for a major award for people under 15 winning it once, has been around since 2007 so not a new actor and has been part of multiple franchise including a lead role on a multi-nominated show, Sofia the First and roles in 2 major upcoming movies ...--Stemoc (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability as the voice actor for the lead character in a television show on a major network. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Sven Mangard and Stemoc. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Rudy Valencia and Adán Reyes, keep Cesar Acevedo. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Valencia[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adán Reyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cesar Acevedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - no evidence of notability, all fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Delete all bar Acevedo - Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a fully professional league nor played senior international football. No indication of GNG pass based on any other activities within or outside football. Fenix down (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC) - Comment - have updated view on Acevedo based on comments below. Fenix down (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What am I missing here? CD Aguilla are a frequent CONCACAF Champions League participant, which I thought was restricted to professional teams. The discussion here in Canada about letting teams lower than NASL into the Canadian Championship is that not being fully professional, they couldn't play in Champions League if they were to win the competition. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're missing is reliable sources confirming that the Salvadoran top flight is fully pro, if that is in fact the case. The CONCACAF Champions League might very well be, but some of its feeder leagues definitely are not, and it's the professional status of the league in which a club plays, not of the club itself, that determines whether its players meet WP:NSPORT or not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digging a bit more, it appears some teams that play in Champions League are in leagues that aren't fully professional - Real Estelli for example. Though I'm not aware of any non-professional team playing. But I'm still not seeing any evidence that the Ecuadoran league isn't fully professional. But if someone has some evidence, I'll gladly drop it. Nfitz (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Nfitz: - as has been noted at other AfDs recently that you have been involved in, the burden is on you. The current consensus, about which you are well aware, is that WP:FPL is what is used to confirm fully professional leagues. As such it is by definition current consensus that leagues are not fully professional until they are on that list. If you have evidence that the Ecuadorean league is fully professional, please present it in the correct place (i.e. WT:FOOTY). The existence of WP:FPL demonstrably indicates that the need is to provide evidence a league is fully professional before it is considered so, NOT to consider all leagues fully professional until evidence is provided that they are not. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Fenix down: And yet I can't find any discussion where consensus has been found that this league is not fully professional. Please point to the discussion that I have not found. Nfitz (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Nfitz:. Did you read what I wrote at all?!? The league is not on WP:FPL, so the consensus is it is not fully professional. It is as simple as that. FPLs are established on an inclusive basis, not exclusive; i.e. you have to indicate through reliable sources that a league is FPL. This is because it is much harder to prove a negative. By your argument there has been no discussion that the Cook Islands Round Cup, the Palau Soccer League or the Martian Premier Division are not Fully Professional so we should include articles on every player until someone proves they are not. Such an argument is patently nonsensical. It has been made abundantly clear to you in various AfDs over the last few weeks what the current consensus around notability criteria for footballers is and I am finding it increasingly difficult to understaand how you fail to comprehend this. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Fenix down:. Did you read what I wrote at all?!? The league is not on WP:FPL, so there is no consensus. Top level leagues where there is consensus that they aren't fully professional are listed there. Top level leauges where there is consensus that they are fully professional are listed there. However the La Primera División de Fútbol Profesional de El Salvador isn't listed in either place, nor is there any serious discussion I've found on the subject. You might have been able to claim that there's no consensus that they are fully professional, but to claim that there is consensus that they aren't fully professional is false. We're clearly not talking Cook Islands here. I'm sure like many of us you've watched El Salvador teams play in the Champions League, and the level of play is similar to Honduras, where there is consensus they are fully professional. Costa Rica, Panama, and Guatamala possibly too ... but obviously not Nicaragua and Belize. I'm not saying they are fully professional, but if they aren't, they must be close, simply based on their results against other fully professional squads. However, there should be some references found. Nfitz (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all *Delete Reyes - Reyes fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL but keep Cesar Acevedo. JMHamo (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Acevedo since he played for the El Salvador national team and meets NFOOTBALL (I added sources to document at least one FIFA World Cup qualifying appearance), but Delete Valencia and Reyes since all of the coverage I've found in reliable sources is routine transfer/signing type coverage or match reports that simply list the player's name or an entry in a football statistics database. Acevedo will likely meet the GNG as well since there are several articles discussing his recent managerial career and some information about his playing time with FAS. Jogurney (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Avecedo - As nominator. Jogurney's research show's that the article is clearly notable. The other two should still go though. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Merge proposals should be discussed on the talk page of the destination article if the merge is controversial. See Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing a merger. If the merge is not controversial, it can be performed boldly. Closed per WP:SK#1, the nominator has not advanced an argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election in Putnam County, Indiana, 2008[edit]

United States presidential election in Putnam County, Indiana, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Usually this kind of information is put in a section on politics/voter registration statistics/voting habits in the last elections on the article on a county or municipality (usually right next to census data). This article is superfluous and ought to be merged into Putnam County, Indiana per WP:MERGE ColonelHenry (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum or Speedy keep NPASR  No argument for deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:43, 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 merge to Steve Jackson Games. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roleplayer (magazine)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company newsletter. (Not a magazine; no ISSN, and the article identifies it as "the company's periodical of choice to reach out to their fan base".) No references provided; no third-party references appear to be available. Does not meet criteria for notability. Mikeblas (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP: NMAGAZINE. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pyramid_(magazine) where it is already mentioned. A sentence or two more would probably be a good idea in any case. Hobit (talk) 17:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as I found one good source; failing that, start a "Magazines" section in Steve Jackson Games and merge this there. BOZ (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice. Hobit (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Steve Jackson Games with a redirect containing the categories. I'd like to see it as a standalone but concerned a single source will open it to future AfDs and danger of loosing entirely. Safest place is a subsection in SJG -- if/when more source are available to justify a standalone it can be split off when it won't be in danger of NMAGAZINE. -- GreenC 17:30, 24 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge all to Steve Jackson Games - seems like a sensible solution for a publication that doesn't seem to meet our WP:GNG on its own. Stalwart111 09:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Steve Jackson Games, as it's not quite enough to standalone, but would be a good addition to that article. Agree with magazines section idea per BOZ. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; redirect if appropriate. slakr^\ talk / 11:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fleischmann-Pons experiment[edit]

Fleischmann-Pons experiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Restorer ignored consensus to not restore this article in the first place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_44#split_.22Pons_and_Fleischmann.22_from_main_article Rolf H Nelson (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Cold fusion. Perhaps a spinoff might be appropriate someday, but "someday is not today...." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cold fusion. The creation of this article was already discussed and rejected, and I think the old reasons still hold. I'll add new reasons:

• Article was copy/pasted a few years ago from Cold fusion.
• I gave the IP a couple of weeks to improve the article. So far[11] he has only made minor edits, all subtle pushes in the direction of a POV fork.
• The scope is not well chosen, and it will cause many maintenance problems. I gave my reasons in Talk:Cold_fusion#Restoration_of_Fleischmann-Pons_experiment.

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect, to restore status quo ante. This 'article' is a straight copy-paste from cold fusion with trivial modifications; it represents a needless duplication of content that, if it is maintained at all, will mostly serve to attract POV pushers trying to create and perpetuate a sympathetic POV fork. (That's not just idle, bad-faith speculation; there's a reason why pseudosciences in general, and cold fusion specifically, are covered by ArbCom-issued discretionary sanctions.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Lede makes it clear that this is considered to be pathological science. Article gives greater details of the experiment and so greater scope to determine what went wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• (it gives the exact same details as Cold fusion, because it was copy/pasted from there). --Enric Naval (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to Cold fusion. Topic is covered at the original title, no convincing reason has been given to fork this. - MrOllie (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to cold fusion without prejudice to forking it back out if consensus can be reached. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's always the case that if there's a consensus in the future for creating the article based on new information, the article can be re-created, and the Afd can be re-considered. But if someone has an argument why, based on current information, the article should exist, now is the time to state your argument. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:POVFORK of cold fusion. That is, a fully developed Fleischmann-Pons experiment article will be the cold fusion article (i.e the experiment and aftermath). IRWolfie- (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect. I don't see why it needs to be a separate article. It's true that the article on cold fusion is pretty long (~130KB), but the P-F experiment is mostly what CF is about, so it makes little sense to fork or spin off a core part of that article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the article appears so long is because the references are huge. As far as article lengths go, it's a moderate size. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. As a largely copy-pasted, it creates a classical WP:POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the living crap out of it. It’s an obvious WP:POVFORK. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 05:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 11:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mackey[edit]

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

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

This article is completely self-promoting!! Andrew Eugene (talk · contribs) 10:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does Not promotional however it does fail WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Self promoting"?? According to the article the subject passed away in 1997... The nom is therefore completely incorrect. Andrew Eugene, can you tell us how you have ascertained that someone who had a park in Toronto named after him is not notable, per WP:BEFORE? Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Nice gesture, but having a park named after oneself is not enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO1E. If the park were notable and had its own article, we could merge this one there, but I suspect it's not notable either. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David. - Turtlepump (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 11:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manjula Peiris[edit]

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

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

No indication of significance Itsalleasy (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There is some secondary source coverage and mention of awards. But the sources seem dicey to me and the awards definitely do not ring my "significant" bell. Knowledgekid87 and I were discussing this article earlier and we talked about merging it into List of astrologers. But that list is only for those with their own wiki articles. As originally written I think it was clearly a promo article but KK87 redacted most of that. I think I would have gone with a PROD though before sending it here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Fails WP:GNG - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Only fringe awards, no significant coverage in reliable sources, no sign of why he might be notable Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 28bytes (talk) 04:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Markku Laakso[edit]

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

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

This article have no other sources other then its external link. Suggest deletion.--Mishae (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article offers only a link to subject's website. Looking at various sources online, I am satisfied that this person has an active career as a conductor, but I don't see any real evidence of notability. Subject is still very young by conducting standards. If substantial evidence of notability from reliable sources can be found, now or in the future, then we should have this article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 28. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 29. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 05:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While this article is not up to much (and is effectively an unsourced BLP), the corresponding article on Finnish Wikipedia looks substantial and seems to have several reliable sources, including at least two of Finland's main newspapers - note, though, that I can't speak Finnish. Unless the Finnish article is substantially worse than it looks, it establishes notability for the subject. Perhaps a Finnish-speaking Wikipedian could confirm one way or the other. PWilkinson (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The corresponding article in Finnish is to an article on a 1949-born physician and researcher of the same name, not this 1978-born conductor. I have removed the bad interwiki link. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, ugh, uncited BLP article of a person who does not seem to meet WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IACT College[edit]

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

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

Not notable enough... And there seems to be a major COI problem. —ШαмıQ✍ @ 13:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Long-standing precedent and consensus is that degree-awarding institutions are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although the article could use more sources and pruning of COI issues, there's consensus that all tertiary educational institutions are notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:28, 25 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep All accredited colleges are notable --JamesMoose (talk) 05:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rentech[edit]

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

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

I have not checked for notability yet, however since the only sources used in the current article are press releases and the company website, if the WP:V violations were removed, there would be nothing left. Deleting the entire article seems appropriate when there is no properly sourced content to salvage. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nominator admits not doing WP:BEFORE. I added a few of the readily available RS refs. Meets WP:GNG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was able to find reliable coverage: [12], [13], [14]. Company seems to pass GNG. --JamesMoose (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion rationale was not WP:CORP, but WP:V. If editors take the initiative to add sourced content, I will remove the original research so the sourced content can remain. If everything in the article is Original Research, than it needs to be deleted in its entirety. CorporateM (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with deleting uncited material. I argued exactly that just a short time ago where the AfDed article would have had a single sentence left if all uncited material was removed, however in this case, enough would be left for an article even after meeting WP:V. In other words WP:V is met in this case as far as keeping the article. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:V does not preclude the use of primary sources, so the rationale for the nomination is invalid. ((primary sources)) should be used in cases where the complaining editor doesn't feel like fixing such problems himself. Subsequent investigation revealed that the company meets WP:GNG. In addition to the above, here's for example an FAA book/report discussing some of Rentech's programs [15]. I don't edit in the area of biofuels, but some specialist publications clearly have extensive coverage of Rentech [16], and they are probably RS. Also, their fertilizer business gets some attention as well [17][18][19]. Finally, being listed at NYSE made it very unlikely that the company isn't apriori notable per WP:LISTED. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone added some sources now anyway. I will take a look at doing some cleanup. CorporateM (Talk) 17:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Their energy-related business is also covered in some depth in this [20] Encyclopedia of Energy; the book is from 2007 so probably needs to be supplemented with news sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some semi-independent coverage of their (now defunct it seems) energy projects (only "semi-independent" because the goverments were involved in those) also on DOE's site and this site reproducing an article from The Canadian Press. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is sourced now with third-party sources to meet WP:V and WP:RS. It also meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Beagel (talk) 20:56, 1 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Leo[edit]

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

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

• Article is filled with promotional expressions Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity
• Most references are linked to personal site of the racer or dead
• Does not follow neutral point of view
• Crazy Leo seems not to satisfy criteria in WP:NMOTORSPORT

John Page Jr (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am the creator of the article. I thank you for your comments. I deleted all the facts that I knew as a follower of the sport from the CRC TV coverage, because I do not know how to use those as reference. Example of the recent TV show: [21]. Being a rally fan and not a Wikipedia expert, I now realize the problems with the article. I have edited the article to address the issues. Please advise if the article now meets all the guidelines.

• Article is filled with promotional expressions Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity --- Fixed.
• Most references are linked to personal site of the racer or dead --- Fixed, not a single Reference to the racer's site.
• Does not follow neutral point of view --- Fixed. The article even talks (in the previous version, too) about a penalty Urlichich received at one of the events.
• Crazy Leo seems not to satisfy criteria in WP:NMOTORSPORT --- It meets WP:GNG. Speaking about the criteria in WP:NMOTORSPORT, it also fits, because:

- Canadian Rally Championship and Rally America are professional series. Canadian Rally Championship offers a Subaru Contingency Program, which gives away over 60,000 dollars to competitors per year: [22], [23].

- Both series are the top national series in its sport, just like the American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans, mentioned here: WP:NMOTORSPORT.

I believe that this article is a valuable edition to Wikipedia, because it is now well referenced and it talks about a rally driver, who has been mentioned in The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Inside Track magazine, Auto123.com and Autoblog.com (Crazy_Leo#References).

Also, according to Wikipedia stats, the article has been viewed 449 times in the last 90 days, which means that people are searching for Crazy Leo in the search engines.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mprice444 (talk • contribs) 13:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better now, but notability is still is a question[edit]

• Thank you for editing page, now it does not look more like advertising, and references are updated
• Notability is still a question:
  • WP:NMOTORSPORT states that "one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series". As stated in reference on Subaru Contingency Program $60,000 was distributed between all drivers and co-drivers within all levels who drives Subaru. This is hardly prize money of a series, more like Subaru promo.
  • Both Rally America and Canadian Rally Championship are half-amateur events. Everyone with basic rally safety equipment may participate. This are national wide championships, without prize money enough to support team for a season and popularity is hardly comparable to American Championship or 24 Hours of Le Mans. Those have status much closer to World Rally Championship, which Crazy Leo had only expressed ambition to participate.
  • It is hardly an achievement to reach 1.4 millions of youtube views.

With recent changes pare is much more appealing, and seems to stand to neutral point of view. Thank you again for editing it.

John Page Jr (talk) 14:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. John, thank you for your comments.
• Notability:

In my opinion you are correct to an extent. The Subaru Contingency is a kind of in between the prize money and a Subaru promo, because Subaru is also the title sponsor of the series. The "Canadian Rally Championship Presented by Subaru" [24]

Also, this [25] states that if a Subaru driver (Crazy Leo has always competed in a Subaru) won all the events, they could get a total prize money of $15,000, which according to the document is "presented in the driver's name" (not shared with co-drivers). I believe that it is not trivial money, but I can't be sure about the cost of the series.

Both CRC and Rally America have national television coverage, CRC had it for many years.

Speaking about the 1.4 million views, it could be edited out, but I believe it was the first viral video that came out from the Canadian Rally Championship, so perhaps it's worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mprice444 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is still an issue[edit]

• Article still needs improvements. Latest edition states that racer skipped 2013 season, and only express his ambitions to participate in WRC, referencing 2012 CRC final standing. Leonid Urlichich holds 5th position, after Ken Block, who participated only in 2 of events.

It is hard to call Canadian Rally Championship or Rally America "fully professional series". Professional rally series like World Rally Championship. It is quite clearly stated in 1st paragraph of WP:NMOTORSPORT:

1 Have driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series is one where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. For example, the SCCA Trans-Am Series is considered professional while the SCCA Spec Miata National Championship would not be.

SCCA Spec Miata National Championship, which is example of not fully professional race have comparable rewards to Subaru Contingency Program (http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=50897) Fully professional is a key element - most of participants of CRC and/or Rally America are amateurs, for whom racing is rather hobby, than profession. It is amazing hobby, but it is hardly a fully professional league, like World Rally Championship or any of examples in WP:NMOTORSPORT

SCCA Spec Miata National Championship - have wide TV coverage, have 'National' in name and have lots of fans, supporters and participants.

• delete I would still recommend to delete this page for Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity

John Page Jr (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

• fixed the above Thank you, I fixed the Reference to a correct source, and took out the comparison to Ken Block, which did seem irrelevant, indeed.

• as for notability If we look at the professionalism of the series only from the point of view of the prize money, and the number of entrants competing as a hobby, it can be argued that the WRC is also not a "fully professional series", because there is no prize money in most of the WRC classes, and most of the drivers are paying their way to compete, therefore they are competing as a hobby.

• your recommended deletion for Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity --- In addition to the above, since Urlichich announced that he is working on the WRC campaign, and that has been published in multiple sources, including a Belgian one [26], [27], [28], it would make sense to at least wait for Urlichichi's announcement of the 2014 program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mprice444 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I don't have much independent knowledge about rally racing, but I do find substantial coverage about this guy in apparently neutral sources [29][30][31]; it looks to me like he passes WP:GNG. On balance I don't find the current state of the article to be hopelessly promotional, and any such issues can be cleaned up. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now article looks much better. I don't really have anything agains it.
• Still, Urlichich admitted himself that professional WRC rally is completely different world from events in America. [32]
• There is some unrelated issues, like broken 3rd and 12th cites.

--- Fixed, thanks for pointing out.--Mprice444 (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Waiting for his 2014 program has nothing to do with Wikipedia purpose. It is a not promotional enterprise, neither it is a to get publicity.

--John Page Jr (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The subject passes WP:BASIC. Some source examples include:

• The Globe and Mail
• Gearbox magazine (a paid subscription magazine)
• The Toronto Star (newsblog)

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is next?[edit]

It has been over seven days since the "Nomination for Deletion". At this point there seems to be a consensus about keeping this article, and even John Page Jr (talk), who nominated the article, said that he doesn't "really have anything agains it."--Mprice444 (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, after some time article would be removed from deletion list. --John Page Jr (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for clarifying & for the help with improving the article. --Mprice444 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 11:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Babi[edit]

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

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

An article about an artist from Ukraine now resident in Florida. The article was so filled with promotional quotes and language I would have preferred to delete on sight (the artist herself has clearly been involved in writing this piece, large amounts were word-for-word copied from her website). I am prevented from speedy deleting it because it makes claims of notability, for example creating a piece of art that "became symbolical in the State of Florida", attracting bids of $100,000 for a piece of work, becoming Ukraine high jump champion etc. Though I can find nothing at all in English (apart from publicity from Whatsellsbest.com) maybe there is something significant in the Russian language...? With my cursory knowledge of Russian I can't immediately see much in reliable sources. Sionk (talk) 22:53, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's hard for me to tell, too. There are some site that have information about her here 1, 2, 3, and a magazine that credits a Natalia Babi as art director... but I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNP or WP:ARTIST. I didn't say "Delete" because of Sionk's comment about other potential sources in the Russian language. Based on the content of the article I understand why it was considered for Speedy Delete (reasons stated by Sionk, no citations, etc.)--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pure promotionalism. Not yet notable--having one work on the cover of a travel booklet is not significant notability. Almost everything else is things she is still doing, but has not yet done. The attempt to write an article with links to the articles on the famous people whom she has painted pictures of is linkspam, and an indicator that the article is intended as promotion, 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:31, 27 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per nom and above...Modernist (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not really establish notability. I would argue it could've even been speedied. Enigma^msg 00:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 11:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistreated Bride[edit]

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

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

Article was previously PROD. Tag was subsequently removed without improvement. Article has only one source which is trivial and primary. Subject appears to lack WP:N and WP:BOOKS. Am I missing something here? Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be unremarkable animated porn without any with little suggestion of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: There are 4 Mania.com reviews about each episode of the anime (1, 2, 3, 4) and that it's been prohibited by Canadian Border Service Agency p15. MyAnimeList is unreliable as per project RS page and project discussion. Extremepro (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mania.com reviews appear to be user-generated and therefore not reliable. Are there any reviews at all by any paid staff of any reliable sources? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk)

The mania.com reviews are not user submitted, but are by Chris Beveridge, who is a professional reviewer in the sense that he makes a living by reviewing anime and similar works (see WP:ANIME/RS#Situational for how to tell the user submitted reviews apart from the professional reviews on that site). He formerly reviewed anime on his website AnimeOnDVD.com, before selling the site to Mania.com. Even though the reviews were self-published, his reviews are generally considered reliable under the part of WP:SPS that says self-published content from experts can be considered reliable. This is because reviews of his were used in the Anime Today podcast by Right Stuf Inc., and because he has been interviewed by Anime News Network and has been a guest on their podcast (i.e., he has had reviews re-published by a reliable source, and is treated as an expert reviewer of anime by both the US anime industry and a professional anime news source). The reviews have been accepted in featured articles before as a reliable source, and are very widely used on Wikipedia in anime articles. Note though that four reviews by one person still only counts as one source, and the second source given by Extremepro does not seem to be in-depth coverage, so the sources are still fairly weak. The myanimelist.net source in the article is completely unreliable user-submitted content (though not in any way primary as Ad Orientem suggested . . . I'm not sure how he got that impression, as the site is obviously a fan site, not something connected to an anime company). There seems to be only one good source found, which probably isn't sufficient to keep the article. Calathan (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I have adjusted my posts accordingly. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak Delete - Per my comment above, I think one more good source would need to be found to show notability. Calathan (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not see notability here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phantom Blood#Characters. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dio Brando[edit]

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

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

This does not establish notability independent of Phantom Blood through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 21:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Phantom Blood#Characters or delete. Not notable. The original redirect was legit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete. Insufficient real-world coverage or sourcing to justify a self-standing Wikipedia article. --DAJF (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phantom Blood#Characters. While not notable as a standalone character, Dio is notorius within the series. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Phantom Blood#Characters. The redirect goes to the character's information which is in a small summary form. Not notable for a stand alone article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. slakr^\ talk / 11:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VF-17 Nightmare[edit]

VF-17 Nightmare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Macross 7 through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details and in-depth product details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating these articles with the same issues:

VF-11 Thunderbolt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VF-9 Cutlass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

VF-22 Sturmvogel II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TTN (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. This kind of excessive detail belongs on Wikia. None of these articles have demonstrated notability through significant coverage. Wikipedia is not a free web host for fansites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Merge all to List of Macross vehicles as the "Macross" fictional universe uses its transformable vehicles as stars of the shows, and highly profitable marketing toys. Most of the Macross universe vehicles can be thus merged (and trimmed shorter as necessary). Tag for expansion to cover the real world merchandising results (sales, penetration, marketability, trademark infringement, etc). -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE-SMERGE all to variable fighter which is missing the merchandising/tpys and real world information. NOTE a "merge" is not a simple cut-and-paste, editorial control is implicit in the process, meaning that not everything needs to be moved. -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Merging several long but cruft pages would create a longer cruft page that would still fail to conform to the policies mentioned by the nominator. A summary of notable toys could be included in the main article, which presently doesn't cover any franchise material like toys. But such material would need to be referenced to secondary sources. Otherwise this type of content is simply advert even if written by fans; see this for more explanation on the matter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, the poorly titled variable fighter page is the top-level article/list for the Marcross planes. So we don't need to create a new one. Given the sourcing there, I don't see why sub-articles are justified for many of these. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. As per NinjaRobotPirate. Bondegezou (talk) 13:55, 7 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.