< 10 March	12 March >

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) 02:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Norcross & Judd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Warner Norcross & Judd

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

fails WP:CORP. although it has existed for several decades, I could not find any significant coverage. only coverage like confirming certain people were partners of the firm. but nothing indepth. it also looks like an WP:ADVERT LibStar (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing my standards. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources that establish notability. LibStar (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject meets notability through the existence of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. (WP:BEFORE) Best regards, Cindy(talk) 04:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please provide these evidence of sources. LibStar (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to nominating this article for deletion, did you look for sources through books and news? If so, what did you find there? Cindy(talk) 05:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my nomination I undertook a search and found coverage like confirming partners of the firm but nothing in-depth. Please provide evidence of sources you have found. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here and here. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A search of Google patents finds literally hundreds of successful patents they've handled. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A firm with 220 professionals is going to be notable; adequate coverage in RS can be found. --do ncr am 21:05, 17 March 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. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fugly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Unreleased movie, no particular notability about the production. After its released and IF it satisfies WP:NFILM, then try again. Safiel (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support fails WP:NFF. Neutral - Tokyogirl79 has provided a reliable source showing principal photography "has begun today" - i am seeing a lot of not very reliable sources-the other information seems mostly from gossip sites. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, principal photography began in October 2013. They're filming the songs now, which makes it likely that they're probably doing the last few scenes before moving into post production. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert this title back to Wiktionary redirect, delete this article Seems like a non-notable production; if it does gain notability it can easily be added at Fugly (2014 film), where this should be, while the root word should remain a dictionary definition. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm still trying to find sources, but it looks like this has completed its principal photography and has received quite a bit of coverage. It's just that the film's name is bringing up a lot of false positives. I've got a few more places to look, but so far this does look like it might pass NFF. One thing to remember with India's news is that they're not big on overly long articles. A 1-2 paragraph/sentence article is about the equivalent of a 1-2 page spread in a North American paper. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We shall wait for reliable sources. OccultZone (Talk) 08:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:INDAFD: Fugly (film)

WP:INDAFD: "Fugly"

WP:INDAFD: "Fugly completed"

Comment: To be clear, the earlier AFD discussions listed above were for the word "fugly" as a neolgism. THIS article is about a sourcable film.[1] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its production meets WP:NFF paragraph 3 (or at minimum Redirect temporarily to director Kabir Sadanand). This is sourcable as having entered principle filming and as receiving the requisite coverage set by WP:NF. It might even have been completed filming (still checking) with announcement of a release date.[2][3] Move article after a keep or undeletion to Fugly (film). I urge the inclusion of the disambig "(film)" in the title only to prevent false positives when someone in the future says "W.T.F." and begins their own search for sources. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 05:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it seems to meet Wikipedia's reqs for future films. I also encourage name change to Fugly (film). Also note that John Leguizamo apparently made/is making a film called "Fugly!" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1730760/?ref_=nv_sr_1 Orser67 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Havnar Bóltfelag season[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Original concern is still valid "Season article for a team that does not play in a fully professional league, fails WP:NSEASONS. Also contains no sourced prose in violation of WP:NOTSTATS. JMHamo (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable sporting season for a minor club, fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 13:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Fenix down (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, obviously not a notable season as far as our guidelines and criteria are concerned. Nominator is spot-on. Stalwart111 02:50, 17 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tomas van Houtryve[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG John from Idegon (talk) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was wrongly framed. The article should be speedy deleted for copyvio as it is plagiarized from here: http://viiphoto.com/author/tomas-van-houtryve/ Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source of which you accusing me of violating, its not a copyvio, besides I added another ref. Speaking of GNG, is it OK to cite references from magazines since the photographers work is there, but not online?--Mishae (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simply having work published does not make a photog notable. you need reviews in reliable sources or evidence of notable awards, again from reliable sources. John from Idegon (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- O.K. I added a reliable source The Indianapolis Star, plus National Geograhic which is I think is reliable per our reliable sources about magazines.--Mishae (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reference from National Geographic is not from the magazine, but from a website and is not coverage in detail which is required of references used to show notability. The Indianapolis Star reference is simply a photo accredited to him--again nothing to notability. Simply being published does not give notability to a photographer any more than it does to an author. John from Idegon (talk) 16:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
leaning towards keep - lots of awards - http://www.tomasvanhoutryve.com/biography.html Mosfetfaser (talk) 08:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note, someone claiming to be van Houtryve's assistant has requested at BLPN that the article be deleted. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 14 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. If he's good enough for VII, he's certainly good enough for Wikipedia. No, wait, that's not a notability criterion! All right then, in 2010 he got first place in PoYI's Freelance/Agency Photographer of the Year. Haven't heard of PoYI? It's run by an institute that's part of the University of Missouri. When Van Houtryve won the award, he thereby outclassed Marcus Bleasdale (third place). (Which of course makes photography sound like a cycling race or similar. Idiotic -- but you can't accuse photographers of dressing up like salesgirls, or [aside from a small minority exemplified by Dash Snow] of doping.) Incidentally, the request, mentioned above, to delete the page is now here. The request asserts that the biographee doesn't want a page, but doesn't start to explain why. (I'd wildly guess that it's because the article is a mess and there's not much hope for significant improvement; after all, most other WP articles about documentary photographers are perfunctory, or worse.) -- Hoary (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of the awards and media coverage. One of the complaints voiced above is that the biography is a copyright violation of the VII article, but I compared the current biography and the very first instance of it with the VII piece as seen currently and the same VII piece as archived on March 1, eight days prior to the creation of the Wikipedia biography. I see no copyright violation between any of these four versions. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update. The article now has added drones. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 21 March 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 / 06:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anima Xavier[edit]

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

Non notable person, WP:COI WP:AUTOBIO. Seems to be a cotsume-con personality, no coverage in reliable sources, just con blogs. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 11 March 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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. The article has no reliable sources and I could not find any elsewhere, neither under "Anima Xavier" nor under "Animal X". (But there are lots of hits for the second phrase with other meanings, e.g. as part of the phrase "animal X-rays", so I could easily have missed something relevant.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not proven. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete - weak sourcing; chairing CostumeCon is not that notable. Bearian (talk) 16:34, 20 March 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 / 06:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INVEA-TECH[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted via AFD; I am bringing this here for procedural reasons after removing an incorrectly placed PROD. While it is sufficiently different to not qualify for WP:CSD#G4, I have no opinion on this article's notability and I am neutral. Giant Snowman 20:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent third party sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC) (as PROD'er)[reply]
Delete - After taking a step back and deciding to look at this again with the presumption of notability, I still am unable to find any reliable third party sources that indicate notability. I think it sounds like an interesting company that could, one day, be notable. Just don't think it's there yet, and unfortunately the article reads to me like an advertisement. C1776M ^Talk 12:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello gentlemen. Since I am an IT magazine publisher from Slovakia and I am really proud of our brothers (Czechs) having company like this, (recognized by Gartner, Cisco, Deloitte and known around the world) I was really missing an article about them in this encyclopedia, especially because US companies from the same R&D and business area like Lancope, Plixer, Appneta have theirs. I tried to use mentioned articles as a little guide how to write about INVEA-TECH. There are few third party references used, many of them I could provide in Czech, Slovak, Polish, German, Russian, and other languages, should I? I wanted to write this article in English because this language is an IT universal language, so it would be usefull for people all over the world interested in this company. Therefore, I would like you to keep this article, and maybe help me with changes, since it is my first article, and I am willing to write more right after I will get the principles. Thank you! Idavac (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP as a non-notable company. JMHamo (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I have not found more English language reliable references for now except those, I have included. And Mr. JMHamo I do disagree with you. If so, then many other articles should be erased, like those companies mentioned above, and since I know this specific area of IT Security, I think my opinion should be considered. Think about English language as an universal IT language. Idavac (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Idavac: - you can use any source (English language, German, Czech etc. etc.) as long as it is a reliable source. Giant Snowman 21:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudz679: - I would not say so, those are just scans of printed media, and I have not found them published online... Idavac (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this one appears not to establish notability and reads mainly as a press release. The PDFs hosted on the company's own website, self-published or not, are unable to be translated automatically so are of limited value to this discussion. To be honest I don't have the time to go through 20 other sources, per WP:BURDEN I suggest you make a case of why the company is notable using the references you have access to. C 679 11:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cloudz679: - This one is written also in English on the second page: https://www.invea.com/data/articles/2007-09-interface1.pdf, and about the case, I can do it, but honestly, need to find a little more time for that too. And I dont know if this one is a press release or not, but you are right, it looks like one, but it is in a serious magazine, so I really do not know, I guess we should not include that one. Idavac (talk) 13:53, 20 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chorley and District Natural History Society[edit]

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

very local society of no demonstrable importance 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There needs to be a List of natural history societies, to list this and others with articles, e.g. Birmingham Natural History Society, and others without articles (many, per Google). Then redirect to that list. The current article has nothing/little more than is needed for an entry in a list. There exists List of historical societies, but I think natural history societies are different. If someone would start the list-article, i would help develop it. --do ncr am 21:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete We're WP:NOTDIR and I see no evidence that this article has any scope to ever be anything more than that. Some local societies, such as BRLSI, are far more than this and justify their articles, but I'm not seeing it for Chorley. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a very lcoal society to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:ORG. Article has almost no content. LibStar (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Творожное озеро[edit]

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

Article contains only an infobox with only the title filled in, also may be non-notable. Srolanh ^See._Say. 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3 - I have added a speedy deletion tag. Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 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 / 06:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AFC U-14 Girls Regional Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable youth tournament which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as you can see from the amount of red links included. JMHamo (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an international level tournament is probably notable, even if this is for little 'uns, but it fails WP:GNG. If sources showing notability can be found please ping me so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 19:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An international tourmament managed by a major continental federation.User:Lucifero4

Lucifero4 can you provide evidence that this tournament passes WP:GNG? JMHamo (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The event is organized by a major continental soccer federation.User:Lucifero4

I would like to see reliable sources that cover this event in some detail, you have been unable to provide these, so it fails WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.the-afc.com/en/u14-girls-regional-championship-schedule-results.html#ui-tabs-4: User:Lucifero4

That's from the organiser of the event, and therefore not independent. 81.183.29.184 (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another reliable independent source: *http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/sports/football/top-stories/India-thrash-Sri-Lanka-7-1-AFC-U-14-girls-football/articleshow/32365055.cms:Ayoopdog (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another source *http://www.goalnepal.com/news.php?id=19493: Ayoopdog (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disagree with the NFOOTY failure claim as it is an official international tournament, but agree with the GNG issue. Can't find a great deal of sourceable prose on this tournament. Fenix down (talk) 09:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No indication the article meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no indication this topic has been the subject of non-trivial independent coverage from reliable sources. C 679 15:17, 21 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 AFC U-14 Championship[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable youth tournament which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as you can see from the amount of red links included. JMHamo (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an international level tournament is probably notable, even if this is for little 'uns, but it fails WP:GNG. If sources showing notability can be found please ping me so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 19:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Disagree with the NFOOTY failure claim as it is an official international tournament, but agree with the GNG issue. Can't find a great deal of sourceable prose on this tournament. Fenix down (talk) 09:02, 17 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our Road To Kosovo[edit]

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

Article about a student documentary, created by the director (who also created the article about himself and has protested the tagging of both articles with COI tags (see the lengthy post on my talk page)). There are admittedly a lot of references, but most of them are either to the university the director attended (not a third party independent source), a couple to a local newspaper, one from a magazine and the remainder are from film festivals. I don't really know that much about films and what makes them notable, so I thought this should be brought to wider attention so that people who know what they're talking about can judge. What particularly concerns me most is that the film only has 23 hits on Google (half of which have been used as references), which is not what I would expect for a notable film produced in the last 10-15 years. Number 5 7 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be enough coverage in the media for it to be a notable documentary, even if half of it is from Southern Illinois University. IJA (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had second thoughts after realising this James Saldana aka Film Blog 101 has created an article on his own piece of work, probably for the purpose of self promotion. Wikipedia isn't a place for advertisement. My initial keep argument wasn't very strong in the first place. Perhaps a violation of WP:SOCK too? IJA (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- IJA james.saldana did attempt to blank the page about himself after the first warning from an Admin Ruby Murray about contributing to an article about himself but the page blank was undone by the Admin Ruby Murray (no disrespect R.M.) and here we are now arguing about something that the subject himself attempted to remove based on the rules. Note, no such warning was given on the Our Road To Kosovo page. Film Blog 101 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - wow, ref-spam. There's a whole bunch of "references" there, few of which would be considered independent enough by our standards. A university writing about one of its own students is not an independent reliable source. Much of the remaining coverage is from local papers (from the student film-maker's local area) or constitutes passing mentions in more significant press. Hardly significant coverage of the subject. The award it won was an Angelus Award which doesn't seem significant enough to confer notability. It's also won a couple of category awards at various local film festivals. Also not enough (in my view). I also have serious questions about the notability of James Saldaña who seems to have created an article about himself and his documentary and filled them with "references" from university colleagues and local papers. The biography, in particular, seems to hang it's hat on the fact that a production for which he was a cameraman received three Emmy nominations by suggesting he had a wider role in a pre-cursor production. Stalwart111 23:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I fail to see the notability of this film and why it should merit its own article. 23 editor (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk Temecula Valley International Film Festival and the Sacramento Film and Music Festival. Both are notable international film festivals that the subject's film has been screened at. Our Road To Kosovo won an award at the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and was screened at the Sacramento Film and Music Festival. Neither festival is local to Illinois, both are international film festivals.
- talk Note that the the Oscars - Academy_Awards like many other film festivals and festivals awards is a process of peer review, "(i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). In all major categories" ^[1] so what I said about establishing "notability" in film is factually correct. This practice is common throughout the film festival circuit and accepted by the public in general for the "notability" of film work in general. News and magazine articles about filmmakers are generally considered good publicity, criticism and look really good on DVD covers or Amazon product pages, but filmmakers general look to peers in their field as do academic researchers in order to establish "notability". Film Blog 101 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. The brunt of the coverage is by Claire O'Brien at The Southern Illinoisan, which is a local newspaper in the town where Saldaña went to graduate school. (If we treat a film's release as an event of sorts, then WP:GEOSCOPE may apply here in terms of how little reach it had outside the town.) Beyond this, I only see passing mentions. I would suggest scrutinizing James Saldaña further as well, especially considering the COI in starting and writing the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Southern Illinoisan is a regional newspaper that covers a large geographical area in the the State of Illinois. Film Blog 101 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Erik is right and the article creator has since suggested my view of Saldaña's notability is "extreme", so I'm opening it up for community discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Saldaña. Stalwart111 01:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you're a scientist "notability" is conferred by having your research published under peer review at an industry conference or in a professional journal. Same goes in the film world, having your film screened at a film festival or receive an award at film festival is how "notability" is conferred; all film festivals use some form of jury review. I viewed Stalwart opinion as "extreme" because newspaper or magazine articles citing a filmmakers accomplishments are not how notability is established amongst filmmakers. Sure articles about a filmmakers accomplishments are great publicity but it's not the standard of "notability" for filmmakers. A film festival in of itself is "significant coverage" - even if the film festival is not so well known in the circles of popular culture. Saldana's accomplishments are all factual but don't seem to be notable to non-filmmakers, such as journalists. The fact that he was a student at the time, in a non-filmmaking graduate degree program (his resume is online), doesn't depreciate the accomplishment of having his Kosovo film shown in several "non-student" film festivals in "non-student" categories, such as, the Temecula Valley International Film Festival and the Sacramento Film and Music Festival. The Both are international film festivals, maybe not Sundance, but reputable all the same for filmmakers. Who sets the standard for filmmaker's notability, Wikipedia or the film industry? Film Blog 101
Note that this is the article creator and probably also the film's director. Number 5 7 11:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the the Oscars - Academy_Awards like many other film festivals and festivals awards is a process of peer review, "(i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). In all major categories" ^[2] so what I said about establishing "notability" in film is factually correct. This practice is common throughout the film festival circuit and accepted by the public in general for the "notability" of film work in general. News and magazine articles about filmmakers are generally considered good publicity, criticism and look really good on DVD covers or Amazon product pages, but filmmakers general look to peers in their field as do academic researchers in order to establish "notability". Film Blog 101 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A film screening at a film festival does not mean that it is automatically notable to include on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's general guideline for notability is that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The specific guideline for films emphasizes retrospective notability where applicable. We do not count any film festival screening because that bar is considered too low. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Delete No indication the film is notable. "Award winning" means nothing unless we know what awards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Temecula Valley International Film Festival maybe should be next up for deletion, that article has as its own source the film festival's webpage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert Our Road to Kosovo won Best Documentary Short at the Temecula Valley International Film Festival in 2005. I just retitled the reference that was already there. The rest of the awards and screenings are already cited in the references provided. There are more but it's hard to find good sources from 10 years ago. Not an uncommon problem from that period when the web was young. Film Blog 101 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JPL, I agree so... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temecula Valley International Film Festival. Stalwart111 23:55, 15 March 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 speedied as a copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) Jinkinson talk to me 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Padalka[edit]

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

The article lacks list of references as well as its seems to be more of a paragraph than an article which is not meeting the Wikipedia guidelines of writing an article. WOWIndian ^Talk 17:42, 11 March 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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete, g12 Gaijin42 (talk) 18:21, 11 March 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 Nomination withdrawn. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kule Kidz Gråter Ikke[edit]

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

Non-notable film project, ~~deproded by creator with no explanation~~ BOVINEBOY2008 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of hits on Google at here searching on Kule Kidz Gråter Ikke. It would be nice if there was more development with references, including about the scale of the film. It seems the movie was awarded funding of 6.8million Kroner (roughly 1.7m U.S. by my guesstimate conversion), based on this. I have added a couple references to the article. --do ncr am 00:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bovineboy for striking the statement that it was deprodded by creator with no explanation. It was in fact deprodded by WereSpielChequer (not the creator), with explanation that fault of having no links is best addressed other than by deleting. Seems the nomination was mistaken? --do ncr am 00:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. The initial nomination was indeed a hasty mistake. The provided links seem to barely meet WP:NF; having discounted imdb and the funder, there is one link providing a review. I cannot seem to find the merit of the third ref, "filmpolitiet", but it seems with that review, there may be others. BOVINEBOY2008 01:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a11, obviously made up. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Glornax[edit]

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

Seems to be a pretty clear hoax, especially given that the only Google results relate to a rock monster species from Star Trek Iago Qnsi 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 03:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Sabancı[edit]

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

Long-term, more or less unsourced BLP, I attempted to redirect this to Sabancı family but was reverted. I don't see that this fellow meets WP:BASIC. There are BLP concerns at the family article that make me suspect that pure deletion a better option if this discussion finds Murat to be non-notable. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article author and reverter claim [4] to be the subject. Martin451 15:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither significance or importance, not to mention notability of the subject has been established. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Best regards, Cindy(talk) 04:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I see nothing notable in what he had done. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 18 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkerbell effect[edit]

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

None of the examples besides "the rule of law" have any form of proper source, and even that one only counts if you accept the premise of the paper. The "tinkerbell effect", as far as I can tell, is a trope. It's a relatively nebulous concept with a cute name tacked onto it that appears in various places in real life and in fiction. None of the actual sources refer to it as an actual phenomenon, but rather as a metaphor to make a separate point. There's just.. nothing here. (shamelessly copied from the talk page) Spaig (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spaig (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. More sources, found in commercial databases and accessible through WP:REX.

Adriel Bettelheim, "Tinkerbell Effect, Part 3: Obama's Job Creation Efforts". CQ Politics (Congressional Quarterly), May 27, 2009
David Astle. "Wordplay". The Sydney Morning Herald. 04/13/2013. Quote: "Or the Tinkerbell effect, whereby an entity (or pixie) is true if you thoroughly believe it exists, not unlike most religions." (Database: EBSCO)
Tom Licata. "We still can't tax ourselves out of the hole". The Newport Daily Express. September 30, 2009. Quote: "The Tinkerbell effect describes those things that exist only because people believe in them. More on this later…" (Database: NewsBank)
Greg Pierce. "Nation Inside Politics". The Washington Times. June 8, 2009. Quote: ""To think that wind and solar or other alternative fuels can fill the energy gap requires a belief in what Adriel Bettelheim of Congressional Quarterly has called the ' Tinkerbell effect ,' as in Peter Pan." (Database: NewsBank)
"Political Headlines". FOX News Special Report with Bret Baier. September 8, 2009. Quote: "There is a guy who writes for Congressional Quarterly, and I wish I could think of his name, who has identified something in the Obama administration called the " Tinkerbell effect." You remember Tinkerbell from "Peter Pan?" I'm not kidding about this, the "Tinkerbell effect." And that is when you think things will happen, good things will happen just because you wish they would happen." Quote by Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard. (Database: NewsBank)

I think the article in Congressional Quarterly and a couple other reliable sources plus echoed in the popular press in a number of places makes it something people will search on and should have coverage on Wikipedia. The "reverse tinkerbell" makes it into a longer article so hard to say where it could be merged, it's more than a 1-paragraph concept to drop into another article (I think). Anyway believe it would probably do more harm to delete than keep, and it has coverage. -- GreenC 20:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move Fair enough - but most of the content in the article is pretty bad, and excising most of it makes it really short. Maybe shift it from Sociology to Idiom? As a sociological concept, it's pretty hard to source, but it's good as an idiom. Spaig (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. this is a clean-up issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Keep - In addition to the content provided above by User:Green Cardamom, there are also variants of this term. Source examples include:

Stewart, Cameron (2004), "The Rule of Law and the Tinkerbell Effect: Theoretical Considerations, Criticisms and Justifications for the Rule of Law", Macquarie Law Journal, 4 (7): 135–164. [5]
Rall, Eric (2010-10-14). "Efficient Market Hypothesis and the Tinkerbell Effect". Retrieved 2011-11-06.
Zie Frank H. Durgin (May-June 2002). The Tinkerbell Effect: Motion Perception and Illusion. Journal of Consciousness Studies 9. pp. 88-101.
Aleksander, Igor (2005). The World in My Mind, My Mind in the World. Imprint Academic. ISBN 1845400216

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This looks more like something for wikitionary than for an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree, but this is more of an idiom than a term to be defined. There's already many idioms on Wikipedia - "800 pound gorilla", "Elephant in the room" and so forth. Hence, the above. Spaig (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources prove its a real thing, and gets significant coverage in reliable sources. Dream Focus 05:57, 13 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Wall of Japan[edit]

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

Lacks notability. The reference is just one blog essay about the general idea of building more and more sea defences. There is such a controversy, but "Great wall of Japan" is not a generally used term for it. (Or rather there is no Japanese term for which this is an obvious equivalent.) Imaginatorium (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term 'Great Wall of Japan' was stated in the source as a term used to mock the ongoing construction, it is not the title of the sea wall that is being built. Until something more notable happens, I don't believe it deserves its own Wikipedia article. All relevant information (if any) should be added to the Japan section of the Seawall page. Greedo 8 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pointless stub. Article is meritless. Jun Kayama 20:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. --DAJF (talk) 01:08, 16 March 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. Only the nominator is advocating deletion, the consensus of everyone else is unanimous that notability is clear. A news event triggering the creation of an article does not necessarily mean that there is not more to the article than that news event. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nils Horner[edit]

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

This page was created on the day itself of his death. That indicated that he was not notable enough for inclusion, and neither was his death a notable event (there are plenty of western death there). Ohter than that he is only referenced by his organisation and a WPost article about his death. That would then make this NOTNEWS. Lihaas (talk) 16:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He was one of the most easilly recogniseable and respected journalists in Sweden. --Marbe166 (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source?Lihaas (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would argue that Nils Horner easily passes WP:GNG as well as Wikipedia:BIO#Creative professionals. He was the Asia correspondent for Sveriges Radio, which in itself makes him one of the most important radio journalists (or indeed journalists) in Sweden. The fact that we have more than four million articles doesn't mean that every notable person is covered. Some will have their articles created when they die. If one is unfamiliar with the subject in question it might be prudent to question the notability in a case like this, but it's hardly a good argument for deletion an sich. He was well-known and respected journalist; it's worth noting that when e.g. the prime minister and the foreign minister comment on the news, they don't vaguely talk about the tragedy of a journalist killed while working, the importance of journalism or something like that, but rather comment on the career and accomplishments of Horner. A few examples to support this: En radioröst att sakna, Nils Horner öppnade världen för oss, Nils Horners karriär, Röster om tragedin i Kabul. I agree that any Swedish journalist killed in Kabul would have been major news in Sweden (especially as news are written by other journalists), and coverage alone isn't enough, but there are better arguments than "it's in the news" to keep this. /Julle (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Hes not mentioned beyond his own work. As mentioned then, the other source is on his death...and his death is not notable eitherLihaas (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I linked a few sources in my previous comment, from the three biggest Swedish daily morning newspapers. Is there anything in particular you miss? I'm afraid all my sources will be in Swedish. We've already agreed that it's not the fact that Horner died, or the way he died, that makes him notable. No one has argued that it is, so there's no need to refute it. /Julle (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not happy with just Swedish media, this piece from Hufvudstadsbladet claims that Horner was "a well-known voice in Swedish-speaking Finland" as well. Norwegian Aftenposten talks about him as one of the most important journalists working at Sveriges Radio, which per definition makes him one of the most important radio journalists in Sweden. /Julle (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily meet GNG. One of Swedens most noted journalist and reporter.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so if a person's article is "...created on the day itself of his death", said person isn't notable? Right... No, Nils Horner is notable. Manxruler (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "among Swedish journalists, he was a legend", "one of the best we have ever had" - from Australian and US press. Shame he had to die before people were prompted to say that about him but it doesn't make what they said any less true. Stalwart111 23:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As Julle. Rasmus 28 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If he was one of Sweden's leading journalists he would almost certainly merit a standalone article.

Developing an article on an individual who would mainly be covered in non-English publications adds an extra level of difficulty and I am disappointed the nominator didn't take this into account.

Nominator said the article was created almost right after Horner died, unsaid is that nominator nominatee the article for deletion about eight hours after it was started -- when he or she could have voiced their concern on the article's talk page. This would have been a more efficient use of the community's time than to make a nomination. For all we know nominator may have been convinced Horner merited an article after all, or nominator may have convinced others that coverage of Horner should be merged and redirected to another related article. If nominator had chosen to voice their concern on the talk page it is possible that their concerns could have been resolved, one way of the other, without any of the rest of us needing to be involved. Geo Swan (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - WP:CREATIVE specifies that a creative professional is considered as notable if the person "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"; the sources that were already present in the article when it was nominated quote seven different leading journalists (including the editors-in-chief of a couple of the major newspapers, and the CEO for the public radio broadcaster, who was admittedly also Horner's boss) who, individually, refer to him as one of the best, or one of the leading, Swedish foreign correspondents. Yes, like tens of thousands of other eminently notable people outside the English-speaking world, Horner had no English Wikipedia article, but there is no doubt of his notability before his death. To say that he is referenced by "his organisation" is a little misleading given that his "organisation" is a major medium of news in Sweden - the national public radio broadcaster (and in any case the Swedish-language sources in the article are from the national public TV broadcaster, which is not quite the same organisation - not that that actually matters). --bonadea contributions talk 16:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a well-known reporter for Swedish public radio and his death also was covered well outside Sweden, in Norway in a number of articles in the public broadcaster NRK, this article also states that he was a well-known voice for many NRK listeners. Ulflarsen (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Time to close this AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 16 March 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 List of earthquakes in California. → Call me Hahc21 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Eureka Earthquake[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE An earthquake that caused no damage and required no warnings is not notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – This is another large event within the Gorda Plate and is not associated with the southern Cascadia Subduction Zone so yes, it's worthy of inclusion (and is already listed) on List of earthquakes in California, but I agree that it is not necessary to have a stand alone article for this earthquake. Let's redirect to the list. Dawnseeker2000 17:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of earthquakes in California, as it is already listed there and is not notable as its own article per WP:NOTNEWS. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Redirect, or Merge --Prcc27 (talk) 16:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect there really isn't any more information in this article than is already in the list. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe we could merge it with another page.. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:55, 18 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Blonde[edit]

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

fails WP:NBOOK Notability is not inherited. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some coverage, but it's slow going since this was initially released in 2000. The paperback version in 2002 is the one that got the majority of coverage. There's some reviews from various outlets listed on the Amazon page, but I'm loathe to use those towards notability unless I can find some sort of verification that they exist. I am finding this book mentioned in some academic works such as this one and this one, which is interesting. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also something to be said for the ALA repeatedly listing it as a recommended book in various texts. ([6], [7]) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also quoted here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nick Hasted, film journalist of The Independent, wrote an entire book using Angry Blonde as a primary source. It is entitled The Dark Story of Eminem [8] and would count for one non-trivial, sufficient, independent, published work. Another using it as a source that's non-trivial is David Aretha, author of non-fiction for teens, used it for the book Eminem: Grammy-Winning Rapper[9]. I found it referenced in a text called At Home and Abroad: Historicizing Twentieth-Century Whiteness in Literature and Performance (Tenn Studies Literature)[10]. It's quoted in The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English - Page 545. Tani Shaffer, PhD psychologist, used it as a source for Explicit Content: Why You Should Listen to the Shady Side of Hip Hop[11]. British sociologist, David Gauntlett, used it as a source in his book Media, Gender, and Identity: An Introduction[12]. That's enough independent and non-trivial sources to persuade me to vote keep Alatari (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per sources uncovered by Alatari and Tokyogirl79. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:26, 16 March 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. Close per SNOW after cleanup etc. With thanks to all good souls involved. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Piek Vossen[edit]

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

Vanity page, apparently created by the subject's wife, using only affiliated sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad article in need of cleanup. Also very cute the link to the article from the subject's official website... However, he's a recipient of the Spinoza Prize, the highest scientific award in the Netherlands, given to researchers deemed to be "world class". His GS profile lists many publications with almost 5000 citations and an h-index of 35. Clear pass of WP:ACADEMIC #1 and #2, hence: keep (and cleanup, somebody, please...). --Randykitty (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the notability, but that wasn't the actual concern. I'd welcome a rewrite, but until then, I say WP:NUKEANDPAVE applies. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 18:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a slash-job on it, keeping only the most important stuff and removing all the fluff and spammy external links. I've also added the info on his citation record and the Spinoza award, with references (so I removed the tag about 3rd party refs needed). Given the huge amount of stuff deleted, I also removed the COI tag. --Randykitty (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qwertyus, cleanup has been done. Mind if I close this per SNOW? The Spinoza prize alone makes him notable, IMO. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:PROF (in particular both the high citations and Spinoza prize). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies Yes, keep per WP:HEY. That's some quick action! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 11 March 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 Moot. Has been deleted per WP:G12 as a copyright violation. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The LGBT Military Index[edit]

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

~~Non notable study, only source is the WP:PRIMARY study itself. Notability is not inherited. Wait until it gets coverage in reliable sources Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

speedy delete its also COI/POV pushing. But yets justhighlighting the one sources' self-proclaimed and non-recognised table i s not notable.Lihaas (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as a WP:COPYVIO. We can't copy their list verbatim. Pburka (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw !vote, as the copyvio has been removed. Pburka (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep/neutral as nominator has received coverage in many sources, but could be considered WP:NOTNEWS. Needs to be kept WP:NPOV tho, and not just regurgitating the study itself from WP:PRIMARY sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of source coverage and discussion. — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see the page itself was deleted as apparent copyvio. The topic is notable, so it appears if and when a new page is created from scratch without the prior problems, it could exist, hopefully. — Cirt (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Township Ballpark[edit]

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

obsolete article about non-notable building that may not have been built Bhny (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG Secret ^account 17:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete never built, no minor league team in Holland. Rmhermen (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to not have been built, and the anticipated team did not materialize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Never built....William 12:18, 13 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FIT Issue Management[edit]

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

The article has been flagged since 2010 as having no references. It is written in the style of an advertisement. U2fanboi (talk) 15:21, 11 March 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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Their website claims a wide range of client firms internationally but this would need context on the extent of their use. As it is, no evidence of notability found from multiple searches. AllyD (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - web software article of unclear notability, lacking independent coverage in reliable sources. A search revealed incidental mentions, and a book of content taken from wikipedia, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G1. The article was speedily deleted from Wikipedia by RHaworth (talk · contribs) at 21:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC). (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptive machine learning[edit]

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

Per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. I have no idea what this article is really about (is it about machine learning at all?), it has no references and a GScholar search for "adaptive machine learning" turns up hits, but none that corroborate what this article is trying to convey. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. This article by an WP:SPA is complete gobbledygook, quite possibly the result of some sort of automated buzzword article generator. I think it could be someone's idea of a joke. Msnicki (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#G1 This doesn't even make readable sentences. I think Msnicki may be right here, and it's auto-spam. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Online machine learning. Adaptive machine learning is a real topic; it concerns machine learning algorithms that must track or adapt to data ensembles that change over time, analogous to adaptive filters. Two examples are Adaptive Exact Inference in Graphical Models and this ICASSP tutorial. I've been unable to find an in-depth secondary ref for the general topic, so it seems to fail WP:GNG. But adaptive ML algorithms are usually set up as online algorithms, so a redirect to Online machine learning seems the best approach to me. I think the author made a good faith effort in this article, but the fractured English, the lack of context for the concepts presented, the unnecessarily narrow POV, and lack of reliable sources mean the current content isn't useful for WP readers. --Mark viking (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^'Delete as sub-literate. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:37, 11 March 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) 02:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova (Ray LaMontagne album)[edit]

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

This article does not show signification WOWIndian ^Talk 14:52, 11 March 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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article creator. Confirmed album with confirmed track listing by notable artist. The album is sure to chart and has already been mentioned in multiple reliable sources, even before its release. Please just let this article snowball. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--Another Believer _(Talk) 15:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG. Two sources listed in the article, more on the Talk page that will be incorporated soon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Already sufficient information for a decent stub, will surely receive further coverage. --Michig (talk) 06:54, 16 March 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 / 06:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rakhi Rashmi[edit]

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

Inadequate notability demonstrated for this barrister. References are brief mentions of subject or single quotes. Fails WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Article seems to confirm Rakhi Rashmi is a leader in her field. Geo Swan (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passes neither WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, in the absence of reliably-published sources independent of the subject that cover her in-depth. I could be persuaded by articles about the cases she's worked on rather than about her personal life, since that's what she should be notable for, but the ones we have now don't say anything nontrivial about what she did, they just quote her. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This feels like a case of self-promotion. Having a doctorate is unusal among lawyers, buit no doubt not unique. Many barristers will hav a specialisation. Without knowing more about the alleged publications, I cannot say whether they might make her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. The article was speedily deleted from Wikipedia by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) at 22:20, 11 March 2014. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

973FM[edit]

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

Non-notable radio station. Article is advertisement and CSD removed by ANOM. reddogsix (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Looks like a pirate station which does not enjoy the notability that legal stations do under WP:NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pirate station per Neutralhomer, no notability. Nate • (chatter) 17:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Replaced the speedy template. It isn't a PROD after all. John from Idegon (talk) 21:24, 11 March 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 / 06:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Azar[edit]

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

Notability not established, just a few press releases here, and Google turns up little. JNW (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the first two supporting refs appear to be blurbs accompanying items for sale and at least one of those is self penned by the artist. The third ref from La Salita appears a little better, but I have no idea how solid a source La Salita is in itself. It could be a forum for self-marketing artists or a local art club, I genuinely have no idea. As per JNW, a google search brings nothing. In the absence of something more solidly supporting notability I think it's a delete. danno_uk 17:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find very little apart from Facebook and Linked in, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After further edits particularly by user NYartreview, whatever remains of the article could be saved. werldwayd (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User NYartreview has been blocked for reasons beyond my paygrade, however it seems to have been an account almost purely devoted to supporting this article. No further refs have been added, merely content removed in an attempt to stymie accusations of unsupported claims. Nothing new in terms of supporting notability. danno_uk 02:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I checked the references one by one in spanish. All of them appear to be cultural organisations with no commercial profile. No sign of promotion of works for sale, no prices, no shopping carts. All background check on these refs results in purely cultural organisations. The first ref Ciutatvellaoberta.org is the cultural branch of the Town Hall of the Historic City Valencia,Spain in charge of organising the cultural events for the city. It is a solid check. The second ref La Salita, is an established arts center in Asturias, Spain, the background check is also solid, with notable involvement in the cultural activities of the City of Asturias, including the Noche Blanca event which is the oldest urban art expo in Asturias. The third ref YICCA, is the less solid of the three, since it is an arts contest with no cultural activity apart from its own exhibitions. In my view, what is stated currently in the article could be saved, since it reflects notable and verifiable involvement of the artist in urban non-profit cultural activity, mainly in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiapprentic (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYartreview Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's difficult to imagine a weaker set of sources. The first two consist of a sentence or two each about the artist. The third and most voluminous is, at essence, a press release, and makes no claims that would support notability. JNW (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry not to agree with you JNW. But it seems you did not check the refs thoroughly. In La Salita cultural org. this artist was named artist of the month and there is a full biography and exhibit of his paintings. Pls. revise the link http://www.lasalita.org/?page_id=1430. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiapprentic (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYartreview Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thoroughly read, and for those who are not fluent in Portuguese, this is the rough translation:

Creator of liquid crystal technique on acrylic painting. Random - his artistic signature is considered an "outsider" art scene , but it is well acclaimed by critics. He has made his mark by donating 100% of the profits from their works. His works and funds have been donated for many years to charities and NGOs around the world, including the United Nations, UNICEF , Doctors without Borders, and the list is endless. Azar exposed outside the circuit of art galleries, and closer circuit Cultural Centers . His work is restricted to no more than 10 to 12 jobs per year for specific customers who must make their donations directly to the charity of your choice before they make delivery of the artwork . His works have been acquired in recent years by major collectors who have made generous donations to various works of Charity . Paintings Insignia : - Series "Women Striped " - series " Hope" - Series " glances " . Azar has been selected to exhibit their work at La Salita Cultural Center in 2013 and later his work was sent to the city of Valencia , where he was one of the works selected by the Government for exposure in the urban sample of Ciutat Vella Valencia .

Per previous interpretations here, that's a press release. Trying to pass it off as something more substantive is misleading. JNW (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your comment JNW. And it is correct what you translate. But all that content which you mention has already been elimnated from the article as expressed earlier by user werldwayd. That is why I agree with werldwayd that what is left in the article could be saved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiapprentic (talk • contribs) 15:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYartreview Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non-profit urban art is a developing form of art. I will follow up on this artist and make new contribs as they appear. In my view the article is a keep.--ArteHistoria (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYartreview Theroadislong (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has nothing to do with non-profit urban art, only with the notability of a particular person. Please do add content from reliable sources that will help in this direction. To the closing administrator: I'm concerned about the development of WP:SPAs here that have showed up to vote 'keep', without offering a new or credible rationale. JNW (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment JNW. I am new to wiki,and I thought Wiki was open to everyone. By the tone of your comment it looks like it is not. I specialize in art history and consider my view as valid as yours. I see a lot of emerging artists in my field and the one we are discussing about seems to have enough refs to stay in my view. It is my objective view, and I feel free to express it. You seem to have a grudge on this one...--ArteHistoria (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith, in order to have an article we need to be sure that they are notable enough to pass the general notability guide WP:GNG at the moment they do not appear to, but perhaps in the future they will. Theroadislong (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Sources by no means strong enough. The licence release by the artist for the 2 pics on commons is so far just an assertion by the uploader, whose only 2 edits are uploading these. Johnbod (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find press releases and self-generated/social media content, even in Spanish. An interesting artist, perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON at this point, but for now fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:47, 21 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voipfone[edit]

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

This article was written in a some of form of spamming of wikipedia for the website to be endorsed. The only source mentioned to back this company comes from The Internet Telephony Services Providers’ Association. In in order to join you need to pay Annual Membership Fee, which does not grant this company the given right to have an article on wikipedia simon161388 ( talk ) 13:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very WP:Pointy nomination, and disruptive. Voipfone has had sufficient sources in the past, but has been written as a promotional piece of spam, and a WP:COPYVIO. Once this was removed it became a stub, with not much sourcing. Martin451 13:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is classified WP:Spam. Voipfone might have sufficient sources in the past, but in the present it is a promotional piece of spam. This article needs to be removed as it became a spam article, and gives the perception for editors that spam articles can remain as long as they have a past history with wikipedia. If this article shall remain, it would give new article writers and editor a bad impression of wiki. Jake748596

451 13:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake748596 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 11 March 2014‎ — Jake748596 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have re-added the awards, including the 2013 Queen's Awards for Enterprise, and their references + another reference. No opinion on keeping or deleting the article. Voceditenore (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Commercial spam. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (Voceditenore) you forgot to mention that the Queen's Awards for Enterprise, and their references were removed in October 2013 due to self promotion. Besides what pages is the queen's award is listed, I could not find one mention of the company in the document you added in a bid to keep it from being voted on for WP:Spam. (simon161388) 18:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) A simple listing of awards with independent references is not spam. (2) That section had been removed not as spam but as a mass-revert of the addition of copyvio [13], although that section on its own was not copyvio and should not have been removed. (3) On page 48 47 of the document you will see iNet Telecoms Ltd (Voipfone), Quote:

An Innovation Award is made to iNet Telecoms Ltd (known as Voipfone) for developing and selling a telephone service specifically designed for micro-businesses, enterprises with fewer than ten employees. The commercially successful service, using Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) to transmit telephone calls over the internet and other networks, responds to challenges related to size, diversity, sensitivity to price, flexibility and instability of very small firms. It incorporates a dedicated ‘cloud’ exchange, purpose-built software and a sustainable business model that supports changes in communication products at low prices without compromising service levels. Thus, customers can change numbers of telephone extensions and run them wherever there are network connections on a ‘pay for what you need’ basis. They are enabled to grow or down-size without penalty, inconvenience or additional cost.

Whether or not the subject passes the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is another matter, but discussants here should have access to the original references which came with the article. The normal practice when stubbing an article after the removal of copyvio is to retain the references and non-infringing content. Voceditenore (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Voceditenore) I looked at page 47 of the queens awards. and Voipfone article has no mentioning of winning this award. All it that has written is on Voipfone it is the fact of the company being internet based telephone service, and who founded the company. I certainly Voipfone did not invented Session Initiation Protocol also known(SIP). Voipfone is now totally misleading, and written for the purpose of wiki recommending Voipfone versus actually being an article about VoIP. Your name Voceditenore is very similar to Voipfone's name, so i have my suspicion whether you have WP:COI on behalf of Voiphone for how you keep defending this company's article. If this article was not written so poorly for the purpose of self promotion I would not have an interest in flagging it as WP:SPAM. (simon161388) 19:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 March 2014‎[reply]

Page 48 47: "An Innovation Award is made to iNet Telecoms Ltd (known as Voipfone) for developing and selling a telephone service specifically designed for micro-businesses..." (my underlining) What part of that do you not understand? The entire document is the press book for the Queen's Awards for Enterprise published by the UK government listing the 2013 winners and brief descriptions of their citations. Read the title and introductory pages. The company is also listed as a winner in the HTML version here. That they won the award is indisputable. Whether or not that is significant in terms of meeting the notability criteria is another issue—it was one of 10 companies that won the Innovation award that year, so it's hardly an exclusive award. The article in its current state (and that's what is under consideration) is not written in a promotional manner. It is simply a neutral 3 sentence description of what the company does, when it was founded and by whom, and the awards it has received. As I said before, I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept. I simply added the missing references and awards so that the other discussants here could make an informed decision. AfD's are judged solely on whether the subject meets the notability criteria for inclusion. And please refrain from personalising this discussion. You are doing yourself no favours. I strongly suggest you read this guide on the appropriate way to contribute to deletion discussions. Please also read this guide to learn how to sign your comments properly. Do not simply paste in a link to your talk page with a fake date stamp. Voceditenore (talk) 07:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral (Voceditenore) I also found that the article Voipfone has not made improvements to support and is still written for self promotion, since 21 February 2007, when Brandon who requested Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion based on CSD A7. This is what the article look back in 2007 [14] not much different than Voipfone version not much different today. This article has surivied over five years as being written as WP:SPAM. (simon161388) 20:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 March 2014‎[reply]

Neutral (Voceditenore) has proven otherwise that that you Voceditenore WP:COI on behalf of Voiphone. talk Looking to use any type of dirt to try to keep WP:SPAM article such as Voipfone listed in wiki, by mentioning I putting a fake stamp. talk mentioned "Do not simply paste in a link to your talk page with a fake date stamp". Maybe simon161388 thought he had to write the time stamp. Instead of being contructive editor, and finding ways to improve Voipfone articles. Besides you are proving that using this award is self promotion, and if Voiphone remains it is purely suggesting that wikipedia is reccommending Voiphone for phone service, as mentioned by talk. Besides you forgot to mention Voiphone on October 18 16:02 by Ip Address 69.23.116.82 who made a comment "(split up run-on sentence, removed external links that appeared to be self-promotion)" 69.23.116.82 removed those awards, including the 2013 Queen's Awards for Enterprise, and their references that were re added by talk. talk no one has contested the removal of these awards since removed once since October 2013, as they hold no merit as long as this WP:SPAM article Voipfone remains here. You keep mentioning this award written on page 48, when it is on page actually 47. Second of all Voceditenore, this award in not be re written to this Voipfone article, and is only mentioned if you visit the reference links. simon161388 Simon161388 (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the page number. No comment as to the rest of your continued vituperatiions. Voceditenore (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. --do ncr am 00:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a recipient of the Queen's Awards for Enterprise it is notable.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Problems with the article have now been fixed. I'm not known for extending any favor to spam, but this is not spam. Straightforward article on notable company. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It turns out that one of Voipfone directors Colin_Duffy also sits as a Internet_Telephony_Services_Providers’_Association director. Voipfone has won an ITSP award for several years straight as mentioned in the Voipfone article. Voipfone trades as the company iNet_Telecoms_Ltd Colin_Duffy has been the director for both companies since 2005. No other ITSPA member other than Voipfone had any of their directors elected or sat on the ITSPA board as a director. There is only three directors currently with ITSPA organisation, with Colin Duffy being one of them it makes almost seems like COI here with the ITSPA award being won by Voipfone. Simon161388 (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- My initial reaction was that a company with under 30 staff could not be notable. However the Queen's award points to notability. I hope that a link to this can be reinstated to the article. I do not give much weight to having a director involved in running the trade association: this may not reflect merit, but willingness to devote the requisite time to the role. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the description of the company by the judges and the reason for giving the company the Queen's Awards for Enterprise is already in the article. (All the awards have online references.) At one point Simon161388 was issuing orders here that the citation could not be quoted because he considered it "spam". But there's no need to quote it. Readers can simply go to the reference. Voceditenore (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral -- Voceditenore, Just Because Voipfone has won the Queen's Awards for Enterprise last year. But the article is less than ten sentences long, please do explain why these references were removed in October of last year. Not a notable article for a company who won the Queen's Awards for Enterprise, but this article still lacks suitable content and notability outside of these Queen awards. Eight of the references mentioned is self promotion of interest, since it only mentions winning awards. Therefore makes and gives the impression from the content of the article, along with awards placed including the Queen's Awards for Enterprise as a mere recommendation from wikipedia.org to buy telephone services from the company's wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not the website for self promotion of products, and services. If Voipfone is are here to tell readers how many awards it has won over the past few years, and get the must needed exposure for winning the Queen's Awards for Enterprise, then Voipfone is in the wrong place. Speaking of which many notable companies such as Voipfone that have been around since 2005, should have 20 to 60 reliable references, and have 3 paragraphs of writing about their company in a neutral form. Most of these references should come from reliable third party sources that reputable,and mention about the company in general, other than just mentioning awards it won including the Queen's Awards for Enterprise. Since there is only two companies listed in the VoIP companies of the United_Kingdom, and as the Voipfone current six sentence article stands which makes it a candidate for self promotion in my personal opinion. Simon161388 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most companies except the largest will not have "20 to 60 " significant references--what they will have is 20 to sixty financial reports, and staff change announcements, and press releases. In general, most of these probably should not be in the article--the place for organizations to keep track of that cotnent in on their web site. We're NOT a directory, both in what articles we include, and what content we include in them. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 19 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bistech[edit]

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

I find this article lacks creditabilty and seems to written in a form of endorsement of wikipedia will recommend the company than a usefull article for the general web surfer. simon161388 ( talk ) 13:15, 11 March 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 March 11. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, entirely unremarkable business, no significant coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP as has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Only evident coverage is a single article in a local UK paper. Factiva search shows an Australian firm called Bistech Pty Ltd which won a minor industry award, and a Singapore Bistech which wins the occasional contract. But not clear that these are the same firm as the UK one, and in any case the coverage would still be very thin for a standalone article. Probably eligible for speedy deletion, but the tag was previously removed. Seems like no harm in having the formal discussion here. Euryalus (talk) 03:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have a series of statements about the company and its corporate structure, but there is no indication of size (assets, turnover or profits). I therefore cannot tell whether this is a substantial company (thus notable) or not. If the Singapore and Austrialian companies are all part of same group as the UK company, it is potentially notable, but the presnet article is a mere stub, so that I cannot tell. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:21, 18 March 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Harvey, Illinois[edit]

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

This article is redundant as it is just a copy of This] catagory. Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CLN categories and lists are not duplicative, and this list contains more information about each of the listed persons than a category can contain. Most articles about cities and towns have lists of notable people like this one; when they get too long for the main article, they are split out into a separate article like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTDUP, as per text quoted by Gene93k above. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 16:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUP. IJA (talk) 19:53, 11 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim McLennan[edit]

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

Not a notable person, fails WP:BLPNOTE Flat Out let's discuss it 00:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 3 March 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)} 13:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entirely unclear how this could meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I don't think a page could be made out of this. mikeman67 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The organisation McLennan leads is a significant educational institution.--Graham Proud (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that does not mean he is automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear cut case of failing WP:BIO. Insufficient evidence. LibStar (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of actual notability. "Partner awards" are given by companies doing business with other companies and don't indicate notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom IT Services India Pvt Ltd[edit]

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

Prod reasoning which I agree with, Only "award" is unreffed, and may not be enough for notability. Wikipedia is not a business directory, and this appears to be a fairly run-of-the-mill business Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP. This article is for self-promotion only. JMHamo (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORP. -- Y not? 13:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCROP created by SPA. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 15:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORP, The same contributor earlier created the same article titled WIsdomjobs.com which was nominated for speedy deletion by User:NawlinWiki on 04:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC). WOWIndian ^Talk 17:21, 11 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Roberts (Australian sportsman)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Potentially notable, as there could be significant coverage given his futsal career, but I cannot see any. If somebody finds some, please ping me so I can reconsider. Giant Snowman 13:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the awards scream "instant notability" to me, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of substantial independent sources. There may potentially be offline things, but as this is a BLP I think it's best to err on the side of caution. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - like those above I can see the subject being notable under different circumstances and it's probably only a journalist's delay on the way to a futsal game that has made the difference in coverage. But that's the standard we use and I stuck out (to use a different sports metaphor) in term of additional sources. Stalwart111 02:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should also say I'm not immediately convinced by the awards either. Most seem local (within the ACT) from an area that doesn't have a national-level football franchise to which the subject might have naturally progressed. It's a shame. Stalwart111 03:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Happy to reconsider per GS if more sourcing can be found regarding his futsal management career. Fenix down (talk) 09:01, 17 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Murray (soccer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article itself defines exactly the manner in which he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Not really anywhere else to go from there. Stalwart111 03:05, 17 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Dykes[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has won the league, captained his team to the cup, and also managed teams, so is clearly not just an ordinary player. --95.44.248.100 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources to prove he meets WP:GNG other than routine news coverage? JMHamo (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I, too, would like to see evidence of notability, having myself been unable to find any. Stalwart111 03:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in fully professional league, nor played senior international football, so fails NFOOTY. No indication of any other achievements garnering significant reliable coverage to achieve GNG. Fenix down (talk) 12:56, 19 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Dylan[edit]

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

"Incidentally, if the woman's only real claim to fame is genuinely that she married someone for some temporary period of time, she should not have her own article at all. She should instead merely have a redirect to [famous-person-she-married#Personal Life] (or whatever). I am not sure it's clear that this is her only claim to fame: both articles mention that she inspired at least some of Dylan's lyrics. But again, if this is all she did, then she should be mentioned in the appropriate article about Dylan or about his works." -previous editor also echoed by a second and third editor. I've looked over the article and it does not seem to meet the level of notability in WP:notable. Even if it is not deleted it is vastly bloated with unsourced material, gossip and OR. Alatari (talk) 12:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I don't know what bizarre process breakdown led to this silliness, but Sara Dylan (also known as Sara Lownds) is highly notable. There are shelves of books written about Dylan,[15] most of which mention Sara, because Dylan wrote many of his best songs about or to her. 1329 Google books hits. 101 Google scholar hits. 33,900 google hits. [16][17][18][19][20] There is nothing to discuss here. — goethean 13:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All those books are about Dylan, not Sara. The songs he wrote about her, their marriage and divorce all belong in his article. She needs to have done something notable onto herself to get her own lengthy article with such extreme bloat. The majority of the article is bloated, unsourced and WP:fancruft. Incidently I am the third editor on the talk page to suggest that her article doesn't meet the criteria of WP:notable. Alatari (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of all those hits found I can not find any biography of Sarah. If she has one published then that would nullify my objection. Alatari (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So improve the article. She is notable. There are many, many good sources. — goethean 13:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the job of the editors that keep adding paragraph after paragraph of unsourced material. I'm not tracking down sources they were responsible for adding in the first place. Alatari (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's "not your job" to improve the article, then you should go find some other article which you do think that it is "your job" to improve rather than wasting people's time with a futile AFD. — goethean 13:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you are trying to push the work of other editors that add extensive unsourced material onto me? It would be better to just delete all the unsourced material. The whole articles existence has been questioned three times now. I am improving Wikipedia by deleting an article that is not notable. Alatari (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pushing anything on anyone. Either improve the article or don't. But nominating an article on a topic that is clearly notable is a waste of everyone's time. — goethean 14:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously disagree and that is why it is nominated as suggested by two previous editors. You want to keep the article so the burden of finding her own published biography, proof that she wrote some of his songs, recorded and sold her own widely purchased music, successful career as a model, parts in movies or television shows, etc, something that doesn't obviously go in his article (songs about her, marriage, divorce) is upon you. Alatari (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A person does not need to do any of those things in order to be the subject of a Wikipedia article. The relevant policy is WP:BASIC:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

Sara Dylan have been the subject of multiple secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, an independent of the subject. Therefore, Sara Dylan is notable. — goethean 15:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan was the subject of all the sources you listed, not Sara. She was mentioned briefly in a few paragraphs or less as an event in his life. Maya Angelou's has her husband's sir name Tosh Angelo and he is mentioned in 6 pages of Googlescholar links but he also doesn't rate having his own page. [21]. If she wrote poems about Tosh, does that give him his own page? It is not notable enough because it was about him and he didn't accomplish anything. Mary Patterson Leary was Langston Hughes mother and mentioned repeatedly in works about him [22]. All she did was birth a famous man but his father was an active abolitionist in his own right and has a page Charles Henry Langston. Alatari (talk) 16:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Nominator.
- Per: WP:NOTINHERITED -Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Ordinarily, a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability."
- Per: WP:ENTERTAINER -
  1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. - No. She has only one credit at IMDB [23].
  2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. - her ex-husband yes, no evidence she has a cult following.
  3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. - She has not been prolific or innovative as a model. She has one Harper's photo in 1965 [24] and the cover of Dimestore Medicine [25] and she never was cover model. Alatari (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the duplicate delete !vote above. The nomination is considered the delete !vote itself. However, comments are always welcome. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If inherent non-notability due to being married to someone is a problem, then why does Anne Boylen have an article? Seriously? This AFD is reflective of systemic bias and sexism at its worst. She meets GNG criteria with coverage in reliable third-party sources. That said, the article needs improvement and work, but that's not a criteria for AfD. SheeshMontanabw^(talk) 01:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Boleyn is the subject of numerous books in her own right:

The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn: The Most Happy by Eric Ives

The Rise and Fall of Anne Boleyn: Family Politics at the Court of Henry VIII by Retha M. Warnicke

Anne Boleyn: A new life of England's tragic queen by Joanna Denny

Anne Boleyn, Henry VIII's Obsession by Elizabeth Norton

The Lady In The Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn by Alison Weir

And more[26]. Are there a similar number of books about Sara Dylan as a primary subject? Because I can't find them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr. Used hyperbole to make my point; plenty of people are famous simply for being married to a famous person, Boleyn a prime example, she's been dead about 500 years, so plenty of time to write books; here we have plenty of people with WP:GNG-passing wikipedia articles don't have books written about them, my favorite being Lawnchair Larry. Seriously, if I put that up for an AfD, people would scream bloody murder. But women? No, not notable. Double standard alive and well. Montanabw^(talk) 00:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anne Boleyn was Queen of England. That is not at all comparable to what we have here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sara Dylan does not have any books solely written about her, unlike Anne Bolyn. I'm not nominating Hugh Heffner's or Howard Stern's (ex)wifes (and I noticed that Howard's first wife might be notable enough to have an article but she does not) for deletion because they have at least 15 entries of professional acting on IMDB plus cover spreads in magazines. I researched other similar situations of famous men's wives and their own Wikipedia pages to convince myself I hadn't made a mistake in this nomination. Sara Dylan has one acting credit for a minor film and no covers as a model. We have to go by the rules stated in WP:PEOPLE. Lawnchair Larry is notable because of item 3)Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. by being the first man to fly a lawn chair to 15,000 feet. Has Sara Dylan done anything unique and innovative to make her notable? Did she write some of Bob's songs? Did she manage his act? Did she perform her own music anywhere? Alatari (talk) 06:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is from guidelines of invalid arguments when determining notable criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia that needs repeating. WP:NOTINHERITED Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits - the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Alatari (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was a significant and often written about muse of Dylans. For a less significant person than Dylan much of what is in the article would already have been merged into the main article, but that article is already large enough and if placed there would have to be separated out because of WP:SIZE. She is also mentioned quite frequently in Dylan song articles, so WP has already created a need for more information than just "Dylan's ex-wife". A special thanks to the nominator for removing the non-referenced fluff from the article. --Richhoncho (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - So are you basing your decision on the basis as a muse which is covered on the section Sara Dylan#As subject of songs? It's sourcing needs to be airtight and it's a mess. Heylin is mentioned but no links provided to his Dylan biography. Unattributed claim to generic fans and a few explicit statements that are unsourced. The last line is solid and sourced and the statement on their son's opinion also solid. If someone who has an interest in the subject, knowledge of the sources (I came to the article to read about Dylan from YouTube video so obviously not my strength) and is motivated would please work up that section with at least 4 independent sources then I would switch my vote to keep. Alatari (talk) 02:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Answers. Your nomination is based on "not famous" whereas the criteria for Wikipedia is "notable" and that the article was a mess - which is not grounds for AfD and save that after your good work it's a reasonably solid article. WP is a work in progress and all articles need work. All the references are solid with the exception of the fan site at Tripod. BTW I am basing my decision on the fact she was his muse for 15-odd years including the inspiration for some of the most significant parts of his work. --Richhoncho (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment actually I nominated on the criteria that she does not meet notable level of entertainer:fashion model (only 1 picture in Harpers) or entertain:actress (only 1 film credit) and that she does not inherit her husband's notoriety. There needs to be 4 independent sources supporting your reasoning that she is notable due to her muse status to Bob Dylan. There are only 2 sources and several uncited claims leaving the section that supports her inclusion in Wikipedia as a muse to Bob not sufficiently supported to keep. This needs to be corrected. If 4 independent sources for her being a muse can't be found then it fails the Basic notable test. Alatari (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ON the subject of a "muse" this gives even better examples: Marie-Thérèse Walter and Fernande Olivier were both primarily notable for their association with Picasso. Sara Dylan definitely in the same camp; works created either about her or inspired by her. Montanabw^(talk) 18:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then PLEASE just provide 2 more sources in the relevant section and resolve the debate. I would be starting from scratch spending 6 to 8 hours reading sources looking for the relevant information while you and others are quite familiar and could find the information and add the 2 additional sources (especially something from Heylin which is quoted and unsourced) to her article thus shutting down this debate and closing the nomination. Alatari (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incidentally, the original nomination language is from Telsa and also TheScotch who both questioned the very existence of her page. If I hadn't seen and evaluated their objections I would not have made this nomination. See Talk:Sara Dylan#Should this article exist?. Alatari (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Alatari. Comment. As you confirm that you now think that Sara Dylan is notable with this post on another user's page, I suggest you withdraw your AfD promptly. Thanks. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with points above by goethean, Montanbw and Richhoncho. Sara D is famous in a way comparable to Anne Boleyn and Fernande Olivier; her marriage to a major artist and her role in his music makes her notable. The article should be improved and I'll work on it over next few days. A useful source is The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia by Michael Gray, since Gray provides meticulous references for all his information. Mick gold (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have substantially re-written the article with new cites for reference. Mick gold (talk) 06:51, 17 March 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 BY NOMINATOR. C1776M ^Talk 17:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

67th Expeditionary Signal Battalion[edit]

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

Most if not all of the content is copied from other sources such as this. C1776M ^Talk 11:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator- As discussed below copyright violations should either be CSD or brought to Wikipedia:Copyright_problems after reading the guidelines there ((db-copyvio)) appears to be the correct option. C1776M ^Talk 17:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The page creator is a new user with several empty new pages using the same template. Perhaps Move to User:Cameronarndt/sandbox without redirect would be more appropriate so they can work on the articles more? C1776M ^Talk 11:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly needs a rewrite, but battalion-sized units are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree it's notable. The concern is WP:COPYVIO though, not notability. C1776M^Talk 14:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why bring it to AfD? AfD is for deletion on grounds of notability, not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - The wp:afd page clearly states that the process is for any page that requires deletion under WP:Deletion_policy so I disagree that it is only for notability. However, I do see that it also states users should list copyright violations on WP:Copyright_problems so I will list it there. Thanks! C1776M ^Talk 16:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. Andrew (talk) 08:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moreton Bay Fig Tree (Santa Barbara, California)[edit]

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

may well be the biggest in the United States but a miserable little and young specimen by Australian standards; no real reference and the source of the little sapling is debatable, at least Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. It is designated on a historic register, and is documented and notable, though the specifics of the register could/should be added to the article. It's kinda funny to see an American tree disparaged and nommed for deletion out of Aussie pride, but nonsense and seems a bit wp:POINTY, too. --do ncr am 11:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. notable historic landmark. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a mere sapling compared to those we have here in Moreton Bay, but being a designated historical landmark is good enough for me. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Whatever its comparative size, it's an landmark and is written about often, see e.g. [27][28][29][30][31] --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is a designated historic landmark and a notable site in Santa Barbara. Sources indicating notability have already been mentioned above. Bahooka (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The size of a tree is not a factor in notability. What matters is the amount of coverage in reliable sources, and the amount is significant per the sources found by Arxiloxos. Recommend a WP:SNOW close as there is really no valid reason for deletion in the nomination. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew their deletion nomination, and there are no outstanding !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC), revised 22:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indigo FM Beechworth Yackandandah Rutherglen[edit]

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

page is in french Ryanx7 (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be an article about the Gülen movement but in French ("Le Mouvement Hizmet"). Could go WP:A10 but it wasn't "recently created". Absolutely no reason to have that information at that title in French. Stalwart111 09:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - the article about the radio station was replaced with the French content only in January. I've reverted those edits and have replaced the AFD tag. I'm not convinced that the radio station is notable either but that's a different thing entirely. Would be interested in the nominator's thoughts about whether this AFD should remain open. I don't think it was his intention to nominate that particular article for deletion but he may chose to nominate the original article anyway. Stalwart111 10:02, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Speedy Close. French-language text cited by nominator was clearly just a test edit or vandalism, which has now been rectified. If someone wants to re-nominate the fixed article, then they should put forward a new deletion proposal. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The reversion satisfies my immediate concerns per deletion request. Ryanx7 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 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 / 06:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James L. Walker, Jr.[edit]

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

I am unconvinced that this guy's involvement in one high profile case makes him notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to demonstrate notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Elijah Adefope He has been involved in more than one high profile case; here is a recent case which he is involved in that is being covered in the media: http://www.joy105.com/a-major-lawsuit-just-hit-between-preachers-of-la-executive-producer-and-central-south-distribution/
Delete. No real assertion of notability beyond 1 case, sources are web ephemera, etc. Agricola44 (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I have shown more than one case; there are additional cases online; including: http://www.law360.com/articles/405013/producers-settle-actor-s-suit-over-bristol-palin-reality-show

Also Attorney James L. Walker, Jr. was honored by Lawyers USA: a legal publication http://www.hiphoppress.com/2006/09/lawyers_usa_hon

Lawyers USA has ceased publication, like many other print magazines, due to the advent of online magazines and online publications. (See: http://lawyersusaonline.com/) It is purely your opinion to consider this ephemera. I have given evidence of three notable cases, a book that has gained coverage, and there have also been hundreds of notable clients who have been represented by Attorney Walker. There are many individuals whose notability is less than his; yet, they have Wikipedia pages. The evidence for Mr. Walker stands under the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. If not, how does Johnnie Cochran have a Wikipedia page when his "notability" comes from one case alone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah Adefope (talk • contribs) 19:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— Elijah Adefope (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Let me address those two points. Regarding sources, most of them are not reliable sources that are independent of the subject. For example, the one you just listed above citing an honor by "Lawyers USA" is from a hip-hop fan magazine that solicits user-material and was posted by an author only known as "phh" – this is not an acceptable source. Regarding why Johnnie Cochran merits a page, the man has oodles of text written specifically about him in high-profile secondary sources like The Washington Post. In other words, he has been heavily noted. Therein lies the difference. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

1) James Walker has been covered in sources including Huffington Post and CNN (high profile secondary sources) 2) The only reason that particular source was given here is because the original source that covered it (Lawyers USA; a legal publication) is no longer in circulation. 3) Johnnie Cochran's notability arises from one case. The reason why so many sources have covered him is because of that one case. His name is synonymous with the O.J. Simpson Trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elijah Adefope (talk • contribs) 20:44, 12 March 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. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of entertainers who have lived in or near Chicago[edit]

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

This is a duplicate list that's already merged with List of musicians from Chicago and List of people from Chicago#Media. There is no need to keep duplicate lists of notable media personalities from Chicago. It appears this list was made before the Notable people list had a media and music subsection and was never deleted. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 06:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as duplication and WP:OR on the "near" part. Australia is "near" to Chicago, if you looked at the size of the universe. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for fear of what this article could lead to.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My bigger problem is that "lived" is such a low threshold. Are we going to include people who were at some college in Chicago for one year? Is that enough really?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 13 March 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) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curved TV[edit]

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

This article appears to have been written as promotion for curved television screens. The topic may well be worthy of coverage in Wikipedia but it would need a rewrite to remove the promotional tone. I will consider withdrawing this nomination for deletion if such a rewrite is done. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my recommendation to keep based on the fact that Sidelight12 has improved the article significantly and made it into a proper article rather than a promotional piece. Thanks! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is indisputably notable, and AfD is not "articles for cleanup". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically it is not a well-written article. Is "curved TV" even the right title? Not "curved screen", which most of the article uses. It is also full of technical nonsense, like the "focal plane" (??) being somewhere else, and this sentence: "Curved screens, however, make it possible to keep the distance light has to travel to reach all points of the screen more or less the same and in this way eliminates the (pincushion) distortion" is obvious nonsense. Pincushion distortion is caused by lens faults, not geometry: a pinhole projects a rectangle (the source image) onto precisely a rectangle (on a flat screen) by simple 3D geometry. The difference in distance affects the light level, so if anything causes the corners to be darker. The stuff about aspect ratios is all wonky too. Imaginatorium (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Pretty much advertising!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:43, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to 'curved screen' to be about tvs and projection curved screens. Can it be moved during the afd process? I found a few sources, and I will look into it. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 08:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a good article taking a rather more sceptical view: Arstechnica[32] Imaginatorium (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lot better. It's added, and the original introduction was removed for being off-topic and a marketing prediction. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 09:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is cleaned up, by a lot. There was a lot of marketing repetition, which is largely removed. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the nomination, this article (now called Curved screen) has seen a near complete rewrite by Sidelight12. It is no longer promotional and is much more encyclopedic in tone. The sourcing in the article is still fairly light, but there are a number of reliable sources out there, particularly about curved projection screens: "curved projection screen" gets 121 hits at GScholar. There also exist articles on curved screen TVs in the Wall street journal, Ars Technica and CNet, all reliable sources. The topic easily passes notability thresholds per WP:GNG. A rewritten article with the major problems fixed and a notable topic suggest keeping the article. Nice work, Sidelight12! --Mark viking (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. More can always be done for the article's neutrality. Mostly repetition was removed, parts were reworded, and ars technica's analysis was added. Two of those sources are in the article already; wsj will be added to further reading for now. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 01:04, 21 March 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:42, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EMoney Advisor[edit]

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

It appears that the subject is non-notable due to WP:AUD. "Well," you might argue, "we should merge this article into the article about one of the subject's parent companies."

No.

~~This would be most unwise, for one major reason.~~

~~The article fails WP:NOTFORPROMOTION; so it should be deleted, not merged.~~

~~It reads like a puff piece created by a paid editor. It's full of marketing speak.~~

It says that, by 2004, the company had more than $5M in revenues and more than 2,200 clients. By 2007, over 20K advisors used the company's software, with more than $110B of assets "running through the system". (What does "running through" even mean?) All italics are mine. In fact, it appears that there are eight numbers and figures in the article in all, and that six of them include a modifier such as "more than" or "over". Perhaps, in a past career, the article's author was an ad copywriter.

~~The article says that the subject was named one of the "top" companies to work for in Pennsylvania, but I doubt that the source (Best Companies Group) is a reliable source.~~

~~Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Perhaps someone else less biased will recreate the article from scratch later.~~

[Edit: Jeremy has kindly removed all the blatant promotional language. I still fear that Jeremy may have carefully chosen to include only positive information, and to omit all negative information, when writing the article. But I have no evidence to support my fear. And so I have changed my mind. We should not delete the article. We should either keep or merge it — whatever the community decides is wisest.]

[Edit: DGG has now chimed in below, and is wiser in these matters than I am. Plus, it still appears that the article fails WP:AUD. Please delete per DGG.]

Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe WP:GNG applies. The article was written because the software is used commonly among financial traders, not due to any COI. However, as it appears there are strong feelings about this article, I will not officially vote and let the community decide for itself whether the page should be deleted. Jeremy112233 (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. A small company that has now become a minute part of a much larger one. I do not agree the product has been shown to be important--it is used by many firms, but in how significant a role? Very trivial products can be used widely too, but it doesn't make them notable . The apparently impressive financial figures given are not for the firm, but the total financial strength of all the purchasing companies put together, which is trading on borrowed notability in a wholly promotional manner. The entire thing should be deleted,and a sentence put in the article about the main company, with a redirect. Keeping promotional material in the history is ill-advised, and we should stop doing it. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 16 March 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. j⚛e decker ^talk 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Krokodilpoort[edit]

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

The only development to this article since its creation has been going from "Small town in Transvaal in South Africa." to "Krokodilpoort is a town in Mpumalanga, South Africa." In eleven years, we went from seven words to eight. Coordinates were imported in 2009 from an article on the Swedish Wikipedia which was soon thereafter redirected. I tried several times to find concrete mentions of this place on the internet, but the only thing I could find was the 'Krokodilpoort Mountain Bike Challenge' which is actually held near Witrivier. The coordinates point to a railway station near the Krokodilrivier but there isn't as much as a hamlet nearby, never mind a town. Concerns about the existence of this place were raised as early as October 2002. Perhaps we should delete this article, as it's not clear that this place even exists. eh bien mon prince (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked NGI maps as well, and Krokodilpoort is clearly just a railway siding, not a settlement of any type. No prejudice to recreation if someone wants to write an article under the same title about the mountain pass traversed by the N4 and the railway. - htonl (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, having looked at the maps, it seems like it might be a hoax or a misunderstanding to me as well. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3'd hoax. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 13:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (2011 film)[edit]

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

Such a film does not appear to exist, despite my wishes to the contrary. Interestingly, a reference to a first full-length Sonic film did appear on a poster at a Sega conference this year, but this is likely an offshoot of Sonic Boom and was definitely not out in 2011. Moreover, the appearance of well-known actors like Hayden Christiansen is extremely unlikely, and, as I'm rather intrigued about why such an article would be created now, the only relevant trailer, while pretty cool, includes none of these actors, not that it would necessarily be notable anyway. Tezero (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax and failing WP:V. A film with Naomi Watts AND Danny DeVito from 3 years ago would have a ton of coverage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:32, 11 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetographer[edit]

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

Non-notable term with no sources provided. I could not find any reliable references to add. Also, this reads as a dictionary definition, which is not encouraged. Tinton5 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete GBooks shows one passing ref in Pop Photography eight years back, and nothing else. I guess it didn't catch on. Mangoe (talk) 12:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But its a valid term used daily! Yes? By somebody somewhere, maybe. By significant numbers of people, no way. The (claimed) semantics kill the word's chances. After all, it allegedly means somebody who uses a cameraphone and never uses a camera. Really? I can't think of a term for a person who uses a cellphone and never uses a land line, for somebody who drinks wine and never drinks beer, for somebody who eats meat and doesn't eat fish, etc. But that's by the way. Only example has been adduced of this phenomenon and the term is almost unknown. -- Hoary (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've never heard the term. I've always thought iPhoneographer a ridiculous concept (a camera is a camera, why self define by the sub-genre of camera type you use), and iPhoneographer has currency, unlike Phoneographer which I have never seen or heard of. -Lopifalko (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drake Mabry[edit]

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

Unremarkable composer using only self published sources Retartist (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:32, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

note-Self published source gone but page is still self promotion Retartist (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion of notability, just a severely over-wikilinked bio with no external sources to support it. If sources are found later, anyone can easily ask for recreation. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 12 March 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 Epica (band). j⚛e decker ^talk 16:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob van der Loo[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, does not satisfy the notability guidelines. JMHamo (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:33, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Epica (band), musician is not notable independent of the coverage the band has gotten. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Serenades of the Netherworld[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, does not satisfy the notability guidelines. JMHamo (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:34, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Optimyth Software[edit]

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

not notable, fails WP:COMPANY Ysangkok (talk) 10:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:35, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STOPzilla[edit]

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

The software does meet the inclusion criteria Babeuf 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Criteria[edit]

The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. (...)

STOPZilla does not meet this criterion. The sources do not show the significance of STOPZilla.

The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.

STOPZilla definitely does not meet this criterion.

The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.

STOPZilla does not meet this criterion. There are no printed sources and the positive reviews are not reliable written by independent publishers, considering there is a lot of critique and these reviews keep dead quiet about it.

It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.

STOPZilla does not meet this criterion. The sources do not show the significance of STOPZilla.

--Babeuf 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babeuf (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:35, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend this article for deletion. STOPzilla has been written in a form of some spam advertisement for endorsement and self promotion of their product. Burbank.63 23:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. It has several reliable third party sources, it just needs to be rewritten as less of an advertisement. If people have reliable sources about the critique they are welcome to use them in the article. As it stands no-one posting the negative information has been able to source it reliably. Jarkeld (talk) 09:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jarkeld did not tell us why this software should be relevant. The problem is that this article promotes a software, that is malware, at least in its free version. There seems to be no reliable sources of this fact, probably because this software is not important enough and this company pays "sources" to review the non-free version, which might not be scareware. It is quite interesting how the user Jarkeld protects a version of an article that promotes malware. I personally think, articles like these are quite bad for the reputation of Wikipedia.Babeuf 10:25, 16 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babeuf (talk • contribs)

The problem with your opinion is that you can't deliver reliable sources on that. I am not protecting a version of an article that promotes malware: either produce sources that it is malware or move on. All I am doing is keeping unsourced negative information out of the article. Someone who is better at writing can clean up the promotional tone. As for notability: the software has been reviewed and rated by several sites/magazines. Do you have sources that prove that they are paid for writing up positive reviews? If not: move on. What is interesting is that you seem to have come out of retirement just to nominate StopZilla for deletion. Jarkeld (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the debates about the quality or the personal discussion belong here (Yes, I kind of started them. We can discuss them somewhere else, if you want to). Back to topic: Why is this software significant? Where are the reliable sources that show its significance? Babeuf (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skullduggery (1983 film)[edit]

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

Obscure film by non-notable director with non-notable star; fails our tests for notability, with only perfunctory listings in reference works. Orange Mike | Talk 15:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Godrej BKC[edit]

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

Contested PROD, rationale that the building will be partly used by a notable business. Apart from the fact that the building has yet to be completed, this does not make the building itself notable enough for a separate article. TheLongTone (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:36, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Desperation (album)[edit]

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

Couldn't establish that this meets WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Might be worth a redirect to band's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleyn (talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 February 2014‎

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Until now, this AfD was improperly formatted (lacking all of the header code). Should be considered as "starting" now for administrative purposes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:32, 4 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: According to The Bushranger, this nomination wasn't properly formatted until he fixed it and relisted it. Therefore, this should be considered the second and final customary relist for low-participation discussions. Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The anonymous IP comments assert notability sufficiently to avoid speedy deletion in accordance with WP:CSD#A7, but that is a different standard of notability than we consider in deletion discussions here. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INSTICC[edit]

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

This has been around for a few years but it still does not have any reliable references other than its own. There are many fake organisations around which arrange scam conferences and provide vanity publishing for papers that wouldn't pass peer review. I make no suggestion that this is one such company, but at present from the information provided I cannot tell whether this is bona fide or fraud Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 6 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources found after searching. They are fairly well known for sending spam emails but that doesn't contribute to notability. -- 101.119.14.170 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete. The general consensus of authors and reviewers of their conferences is that they organize only good conferences and some of them are actually excellent conferences (rank A); many of their keynote speakers are top scientists from well known universities such as MIT, ETH-Zurich, etc. Frequently they co-operate with or are technically co-sponsored by ACM, AAAI, IEEE and other prestigious international associations. Furthermore, most of their conferences publish proceedings at SCITEPRESS and post-conference best papers with Springer LNAI, LNBIP, LNCS, CCIS, and others. 85.244.136.210 (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC) — 85.244.136.210 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Do not Delete. INSTICC organized conferences follow a double-blind review process with the help of international program committees, usually with more than 20 countries represented and an "oral papers" acceptance rate of around 40%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.20.147 (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — 85.246.20.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The article lacks independent sources that indicate notability and I have not been able to locate any significant coverage. Editing history is mostly a list of single purpose accounts (as are the "do not deletes" here), suggesting this is merely self-promotional/COI. Peacock (talk) 12:52, 21 March 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 both and recreate as a redirect to Death of Jason Sweeney. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:45, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Justina Morley[edit]

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

WP:PERPETRATOR, not notable for anything other than the crime for which she was convicted. Ruby Murray 15:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is likewise not notable for anything other than involvement in the Death of Jason Sweeney:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 15:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 6 March 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, Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect both to Death of Jason Sweeney per WP:PERPETRATOR. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 12 March 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. → Call me Hahc21 19:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Bradley (surgeon)[edit]

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

Spamvert full of redlinks to non-notable topics ("coveted Silver Sow Award") and fluff calculated to make the guy look more important than he is. Orange Mike | Talk 00:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree...his list of credentials sounds impressive on the outset, but at the same time, it's not out of line with many physicians. There are lots of NFL or NBA physicians. Most docs have published research or taught at a university. Bali88 (talk) 01:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article states that "Bradley has published numerous peer reviewed articles for medical journals and medical textbook chapters." Problem is: I can't find any of them, and even if he did publish these articles, there is doubt to whether his works and achievements satisfy the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS. Definitely a lot of puffery in the article to make him seem more important than he is. I didn't even know the NFL had a "Medical Research Peer Review Committee". Mz7 (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it does read like a promotion and that's a no-no.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamcruft. Searching for "James P. Bradley" on Web of Science I find quite a few publications (105, to be exact), but not all of these are probably his (the name is, of course, quite common). Even assuming for the sake of the argument that all of these publications are his, they don't make enough of an impact to meet WP:ACADEMIC#1 in a high-citation area like surgery (704 citations, h-index=14). I don't see any other evidence that he might meet WP:PROF or any other guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You think it's fluffy now? [33]. Now that's the way to write a promotional piece. JNW (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - I stand amazed at the poofiness (like fluffiness, but with less substance and more sweetened hot air)! --Orange Mike | Talk 14:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He's spent almost his entire career at Pitt. I've refined Randykitty's WoS search (query is AUTHOR: (bradley j*) Refined by: WEB OF SCIENCE CATEGORIES=(SURGERY) AND ORGANIZATIONS-ENHANCED=(UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH) Timespan=All years. Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI) to eliminate false-positives, finding now only 25 publications with h-index 11 and around 300 total citations. I think this is borderline, but not quite enough because medicine is a fairly high citation-rate field. Agricola44 (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Comment it looks like we have a newcomer to Wikipedia that is learning about policy and such. I'd support userfying this article to workspace of User:Damarisgomez while the new user learns the ropes.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I usually support userfication in cases where the article subject has a reasonable potential to become acceptable in the future, as in WP:TOOSOON nominations. For example, in AfDs of an upcoming feature film or novel. Here, this subject is simply not notable for Wikipedia, and there isn't a significant probability for notability in the future. Also, the article is written in such a way that a total rewrite may be for the better. That said, I wholeheartedly thank the user for their attempt to contribute to Wikipedia, and I urge them to keep contributing. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure he's a good surgeon, but he fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G7. Article has been deleted: 15:22, 12 March 2014 Anthony Bradbury (talk | contribs) deleted page Blue Penguins (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (non-admin closure) Jarkeld (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Penguins[edit]

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

All the sources seem to either be about VOIP in general, or about the 0700 numbering scheme. Most are from many years ago, and none seem to mention the company. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - No reason to have its own article. Bali88 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like an ad for VOIP/Blue Penguins. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, per WP:SPAM author obviously has a WP:COI in this company and is now being disruptive on wikipedia. WP:CSD_G5 is likely to cover it in the near future. Martin451 13:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note. Martin451 has endorsed a WP:SPAM article Voipfone which I mentioned and has been poorly written, and is pure spam. Martin451 please note raising flags on spam articles is not considered being disruptive. Martin451 has no sufficient reason to delete this article other the fact I been raising flags on some questionable articles and sources, which have not been moderated for several years. Also note Martin451 has not mentioned any reason to have this article deleted, other than accuse Simon of being disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs)

Raising multiple AfDs because the WP:SPAM article for your own company has been nominated is WP:Pointy and disruptive, especially when those articles are for your competitors. Using WP:SOCK puppets to !vote in AfDs will get you banned. Sometimes it is good to call a spade a WP:SPADE and you are not here to be constructive. Martin451 14:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martin451 has brought up the fact that this article for deletion for the fact for my involvement of flagging Voipfone for spam. Martin451 also wants Voipfone WP:SPAM article to remain by using the WP:COI and WP:Pointy cards. The fact Voipfone is WP:SPAM and needs to reviewed by the wiki team. Allowing Voipfone to remain, and Blue Penguins to be deleted will undermine the wikipedia foundation for WP:SPAMMY article, regardless if they flagged by simon161388 who has WP:COI in Blue Penguins. This is where Communal Consensus comes in and decides whether Voipfone, or Blue Penguins remains or gets deleted. Not Martin451 who wants to use disruptive behaviour, WP:COI and WP:Pointy cards to keep me from flagging WP:SPAM site such as Voipfone is not disruptive behaviour. I personally will understand if Blue Penguins is spam and must be deleted, but for Voipfone to remain on wiki indefinitely due to the fact it can has been for several years without a compliant or a flagg to the communal consensus is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon161388 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 March 2014‎

Delete. Commercial spam.CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a request has been made to delete Blue Penguins as to defending the article by (talk) is getting to time consuming, and please no one reverted the page to continue this three ring cirus. (talk) Simon161388 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (CSD G3: blatant hoax) SuperMario Man ( talk ) 05:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comet pokorny[edit]

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

Possibly a hoax (especially given the absurd "artist conception" of the comet) but even if the article is factual, this comet does not appear to be notable. Pichpich (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax. Safiel (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 11 March 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) 08:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atticus Vanires de Mercure[edit]

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

I have been unable to even verify the existence of this individual. DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only other thing that pops up is this, which is this article verbatim. Maybe he existed, but certainly doesn't meet notability guidelines if no one else can be arsed to write about him. Bali88 (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page Bali found has an extra paragraph so maybe what we have here is a copyright violation. Anyway the article has no verification or even a particular claim to notability. Utterly no use as it stands. Thincat (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a copyvio of a hoax: the source above says something about a festival. I'd expect that to show up somewhere: it doesn't.TheLongTone (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even the article itself states, "This Is False". Bearian (talk) 19:59, 17 March 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.