< 30 March	1 April >

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 article was deleted due to an unrelated WP:PROD some time later, making this AfD unnecessary.

This AfD is being closed many years later because it was never properly closed, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 06:45, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Epstein[edit]

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

Non-notable director/products. None of the refs that mention the subject have the in depth coverage and independence required. Most refs are to the filmmaker's homepage, blogs and personal websites - which are not a reliable source. The IMDB source is the closest to independent, but even those aren't enough according to Wiki Standards for notability and the article's links to the films mentioned are all pointing to the filmmaker's promotional pages. Clearly, this article is for the purpose of self-promotion. Nothing obvious in google.

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. Tawker (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Healey[edit]

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

Politician who has never held elected office and has not received significant coverage outside of a single event (the 2014 election for Massachusetts Attorney General). Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Maura Healey also received significant media coverage prior to the 2014 campaign because she led the challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act here are links to her previous media coverage on reputable news outlets. I am the articles creator and have provided a number of these articles as sources on the page. (DOMA)[1] [2][3] [4] [5] Maura Healey also led the fought for legislation to support access to reproductive healthcare through the 2007 Buffer Zone Law and received substantial media coverage from that.[6] [7] [8] These sources are proof of significant media coverage prior to the 2014 election for Attorney General. Zgreenblatt (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.

Press releases from the office the subject works for or from her campaign do not indicate notability. Neither does the Associated Press article [9], which is largely based on a press release from Healey [10]). The news articles either mention the subject only in passing or in the context of one event (the campaign). Also, op-eds written by the subject do not indicate notability. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Associated Press only reports on factual, non-bias news. I do not see why it would not be a legitimate source. If these sources are deleted the page should still be factual considering she has news written about her dating back to 1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgreenblatt (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Deborah Goldberg who is running for Massachusetts treasurer has a page but has never held state office before, solely a selectman for Brookline, MA. [11] Joseph Avellone has a page and is a current candidate for Governor of Massachusetts but has yet to be elected. [12]. Maura has participated in numerous national legislative movements and has much press covering this and officially government documents citing her participation. She is more relevant now because of her candidacy but not not known for her candidacy. Maura Healey is credited with being the primary person behind the Attorney General's challenge to the Federal Defense of Marriage Act. She also ran 5 bureaus in the Attorney General office before her resignation. This can be found in multiple news outlets but is all included in this Boston Globe article. [13] If however, there is anything I can do to further prove her notability or improve the page please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zgreenblatt (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep. I have carefully read the sources and they seem to be legitimate even if information is from a press release. It was still reported in US national news outlet. I do not think that such an individual would run for such an important position if she was an unknown or had no support. User talk:BenoitHoog 15:00 04 April 2014 (GTM+1) — Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 3 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morellato Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and suggest to withdraw, nominated for deletion a few hours after creation, clearly notable company. There is a whole book about the history of the company, Il lusso pretàporter. Morellato & Sector orologi, gioielli e idee vincenti by Roberta Paolini, Marsilio, 2008. Originally a leading manufacturer of watch straps[14][15], as of 1995 five million pieces sold every year,[16] starting from 2005 successfully expanded its production in jewelery[17] and watches (placed 17° in worldwide sales of watches as of 2013[18]). Further examples of significant coverage: [19], [20], [21]. Cavarrone 06:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above, and also found sources like this one from Google Books: Whole section devoted to history of Morellato (in Italian) here - I checked and it doesn't appear to be a reprint of the Italian Wiki. Also a biographical article on the founder with company info here. Mabalu (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I am for speedy deletion of tag by JMHamo for 100 obvious reasons!

1reason: Morellato Group is parent of Sector No Limits and Sector's article is not tagged!

2reason: Morellato Group is commercially bigger than Sector!

3reason: Morellato Group's article is just a stub!

4reason: Morellato Group's subsidiaries are all important brands ready for related articles!

I will continue with other obvious reasons next time.--Pagoprima (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources found by Cavarrone and Mabalu: now I ask immediate end of this discussion and removal of absurd tag by a user who does not know the matter. My time is valid for improve articles--Puccetto (talk) 12:09, 3 April 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. No prejudice against the creation of a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Indispensable Collection[edit]

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

Only notable mention is Michael's own website here. No significant coverage anywhere on the web that passes WP:NALBUMS or more generally WP:GNG. Just a track listing. Should be merged to artist page/discography. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Michael Jackson albums discography or Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable (digital) boxset. — Status (talk · contribs) 21:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it fails both WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 06:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Michael Jackson albums discography it is a boxset, but not so important. Parabola1999 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buccellati[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP JMHamo (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and suggest to withdraw, nominated for deletion a few hours after creation, clearly notable, historical brand since 1750s."Buccellati made jewelry for the royal families of Italy, Spain and Egypt, as well as Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII, among others" (from Heritage Fine Jewelry & Timepieces by Jill Burgum, Katie Pierce Johnston and James L. Halperin). The same sources already included in the article suggest some notability. There are several books about the history of the manufacturer: Sylvia Luzzatto, Buccellati. arte senza tempo, 5 Continents Editions, 2008; Martina Corgnati, Mario Buccellati: Prince of Goldsmiths, Rizzoli International Publications, Incorporated, 1999; Vincent-Emmanuel Ragot, Buccellati, Perseus Distribution Services, 2003. More from Google Books: M. Mosco, Art of jewelry and artists' jewels in the 20th century, Giunti, 2001, pp. 20-21 and 168-179. M. Amari, I musei delle aziende, FrancoAngeli, 2001, pp. 239-242. A. Mazzuca, I numeri uno del made in Italy, Baldini Castoldi Dalai, 2005, pp. 66-67. A. Testa, M. Garbuglia, Profilo Italia: Un Certo Stile Made in Italy, Berenice, 1990, pp. 150-153. M. Di Lorenzo, "Da Roma a New York l'impero del Principe dei gioiellieri", in Il Parlamento italiano, VII (1959), n. 3-4, pp. 42 ss.; R. Bossaglia, "I gioielli di Gabriele D'Annunzio", in Bolaffi Arte, November 1977, n. 74, suppl., pp. 40-47. I assume that's enough for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 06:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I am for speedy deletion of tag by JMHamo for 100 obvious reasons!

1reason: Buccellati is historical and famous brand in all the world!

2reason: Buccellati is commercially bigger than Sector No Limits and Sector's article is not tagged!

3reason: Buccellati's article is just a stub!

4reason: Buccellati's founders are important artists ready for related articles!

I will continue with other obvious reasons next time.--Pagoprima (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources found by Cavarrone and now I ask immediate end of this discussion and removal of absurd tag by a user who does not know the matter. My time is valid for improve articles--Puccetto (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would rather keep it because following their website they have shops in expensive places such as Aspen, Beverly Hills, Mayfair in London, Paris, Moscow, etc. Besides, Forbes wrote an articles about them. [22] User talk:BenoitHoog 15:29 03 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 3 April 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. Tawker (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Fan Extras Collection[edit]

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

One of many collections released posthumously. Quick search of good reveals only two notable mentions one from PR News Wire which only confirms its release and one from Rollingstone magazine mentioning things about individual tracks. This article is nothing more than a track listing and thus not notable per WP:NMUSIC or more generally per WP:GNG → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 05:37, 2 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Craig svonkin[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines generally and for academics specifically. Assumed good faith by not requesting speedy deletion, but the article's creator appears to be interested primarily in maintaining the entry so as to add nonsense. JNW (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, GS h-index of 2, fails WP:PROF. Jinkinson talk to me 20:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. This is no exception to the rule that Assistant Professors are rarely notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Waste of time. Clear A7. --Randykitty (talk) 08:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Assistant professors are usually too early in their career to pass WP:PROF and I see no sign that this case is an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 1 April 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 Batman: Arkham Knight. WP:SNOW. No content apart from "this is a character appearing in X". This could have easily been handled through normal editing without wasting time at AFD. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Arkham Knight[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON is entirely relevant. This is for an upcoming game that hasn't been released yet. When it has been released, and when there are reliable sources, then an article like this should be created.

EDIT: Already covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman:_Arkham_Knight#Characters too. Ging287 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too soon. buff bills 7701 20:16, 31 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 g11 advertising, g12 copyright violation. It appears that mtv.com allows people to write their own blurb pages. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Icekid (musician)[edit]

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

The subject of this article isn't notable. A google search of "Ice Kid" doesn't show significant coverage in reliable third party sources. 123kiki who created the article vandalized the Wizkid article in this edit. The awards and nominations section of the article is false. The subject of the article didn't win nor got nominated for the Hip Hop World Awards and World Music Awards. The other awards mentioned do not appear to be notable because a Google search of them do not yield any positive results. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. versace1608 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyright violation, and I've requested such action. Also could be speedied as spam. JNW (talk) 20:08, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Field Apothecary[edit]

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

No explanation for significance (if there is any), relies on one source. JamKaftan (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas not-notable, I'm surprised that one mention in a local website satisfies anybody enough to remove the csd.TheLongTone (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page should not be speedily deleted because I created it with the plan of additional research to be conducted later under the auspices of a Vassar College class, "Field Experiences in the Hudson Valley."

See the course description: ^[1] See the course requirements (with reference to Wikipedia publishing assignment): ^[2] See the course blog: ^[3]

^ http://faculty.vassar.edu/lenevare/2014/enst291/description.html. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ http://faculty.vassar.edu/lenevare/2014/enst291/requirements.html. ((cite web)): Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Sustaining Hudson Valley Agriculture | Environmental Studies 291 Spring 2014".

We are trying to get the stubs started so it will be easier for the students to develop them later. If there are suggestions for a better way to go about this, I would like to know, thanks. Baynard (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to support your teaching/learning effort. But any article out in "mainspace" is subject to review, i.e. to AFD as here, about whether the topic meets Wikipedia notability standard or not. Not every small business in the Hudson Valley is going to be notable, though I think this one is notable. So either each article needs to have enough sources upfront to establish notability clearly, or you may encounter more AFD processes and have to respond, or you could start the articles in "userspace", e.g. at User:Baynard/Field Apothecary. And only move (which you can do yourself, under Move tab) to mainspace (e.g. to Field Apothecary) when you feel that notability is clear. After a move, the previous location would redirect to the new location. Maybe you could have all your articles indexed, listed, from one userpage, e.g. User:Baynard/Course list of articles. If I were you, i might personally kinda like to develop them in mainspace, so students get to see other editors coming by and adding categories and word-smithing and so on. Usually no one else will contribute to an article in userspace. If you post to my Talk page about any of your stub articles, or point me to a list of them, i would be happy to try to develop them just enough to try to avoid their being nominated for deletion. But even if an article was AFD'd and the decision was to Delete, you could still get a copy of the article "userfied", i.e. put into your userspace, so an AFD process is not that terrible. Hope this helps. --do ncr am 22:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rural Intelligence article alone seems good enough to establish notability for me. I think references were added, after someone commented that there was just one reference above. Keep. --do ncr am 04:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with Doncram. It appears to be a physical example of a CSA. The article needs to be developed (if Wiki does not want to keep the article then perhaps redirect to CSA and add it too that article). User talk:BenoitHoog 14:23 04 April 2014 (GMT+1) — Preceding undated comment added 12:25, 4 April 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. Tawker (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMarket Inc.[edit]

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

Fails the notability standard WP:COMPANY because OpenMarket has not been the subject of sustained coverage in independent sources. There's tons of press releases and announcements out there in various PR news services like Wireless News or Health & Beauty Close-Up, but when you take away press releases there's nothing left to justify an article. Other coverages is brief notices of things like mergers and acquisitions, e.g. "Open Market to Acquire Folio Corporation". Information Today, Vol. 14, No. 4, April 1997. Per WP:ROUTINE, this is not the in-depth, independent coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I agree with Xxanthippe. Besides, if there is no more information than that it is irrelevant. User talk:BenoitHoog 15:48, 3 April 2014 (GMT+1).

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. Tawker (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Armtech SMOLT[edit]

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

For IP: [23]

Subject fails WP:GNG.

All sources I could find circle back to this article or a single unreliable source at “securityarms.com”. [[24]]

I can find no indication that a firearms manufacture called “Armtech” actually exists in Amsterdam. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC) NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE...I have found some photos and captions of this gun on the internet. It appears to be nothing more than a S&W frame with a Colt barrel. Hence, the name...
SMith and cOLT...SMOLT. It's just some gunsmith's project, experiment, toy or whatever else you want to call it. Therefore it is not notable.--RAF910 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ASmallWorld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I placed this article up for deletion since it has been listed as containing non-neutral content (advertising) for a long time. I also think think the page lacks notability WP:CORP. To wit, the content on this page links directly to promotion pieces put out by asmallworld when it launched and asmallworld has an extremely low ALEXA ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs) 13:39, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

Comment I placed this nomination on behalf of the above user, as his attempt at AfD was incorrectly formatted. I copied the above rational from the incorrect AfD. Safiel (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 18:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is ongoing suspicious deletion of critical edits occurring on the asmallworld page. Immediately, after I placed this article up for deletion, the primary person who has been maintaining the advertising tone on the page changed the Alexa ranking to reflect a 400,000 place rise for the site. Within hours a bot corrected the ranking back down to below 500,000. The same user has been creating a highly argumentative and accusative atmosphere - consistently deleting material based on 'non-neutral sources' the same sources are used throughout the article in support of advertising biased non-neutral content. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 01:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Get real. I have explained the change thoroughly → see: Talk:ASmallWorld#Alexa rank - yet you still choose to make such ill-affected accusations. Early 2012, "asmallworld.net" was ranked, at ca. 6000.
Also, I did not do any content changes, but only reverted original research and synthesis, i.e. restored the status quo ante version (from before the IP edits, see this version) Please note the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which means retaining the status before the bold edit was made and reverted; i.e. "leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made". I did offer Mostlyoksorta my help to rewrite the article - instead, the user did choose to continue his/her edit warring and to nominate the article for deletion. Please also see: Talk:ASmallWorld#Edit warring, sockpuppets, WP:OR & WP:SYNTH, proposed deletion of article --IIIraute (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only reiterate that I think this article should either be deleted or kept based on on Wikipedia's criteria, not on whatever personal accusations are being made. As for offers to edit you did that for Faceplant2020 not me. And as far as I can see, Faceplant2020 wrote you back accepting your offer. Whatever happened in the edit history of that article, which clearly includes non-neutral sockpuppeting in the creation of content on behalf of asmallworld, this articles of deletion debate should stick to the facts. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Appears to, at the very least, satisfy WP:GNG, which is sufficient for inclusion. While fairly weak on WP:NCORP, in the end it doesn't matter, since it satisfies the general notability guidelines. It could stand editing for NPOV. I will not comment as to recent edits or anything about Alexa, as it really doesn't matter at this point, at least as far as keep/delete goes. Safiel (talk) 03:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In regards to WP:GNG the sources in general only reflect a passing interest, all sources are from the time immediately surrounding the relaunch of the website in 2013, and they are generally consistent with a PR campaign rather then NPOV news reporting. Outside of a one or two month period there are no further NPOV sources.(Mostlyoksorta (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I would refer you to WP:NTEMP. Notability is not temporary. Once a subject has received sufficient coverage in reliable sources, it does not require ongoing coverage. The company received sufficient coverage in reliable sources at the time of its relaunch to establish notability. Once notability is established, it never goes away. I would have to reiterate my keep position. I should note that I have initiated many AfD's and participated in many more, most of the time going with the delete position. But the convergence of the Wikipedia policies of GNG and NTEMP constrain me to a keep position on this AfD. Safiel (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your explanations. I am just wondering how this interacts with the idea of Routine Coverage. There is always a story that fills a paper for a day, based on a press release or whatever. I am not sure that their are any duration or depth of coverage under the notability standards. Anyway, I appreciate all your commentary and thought on this. (Mostlyoksorta (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Keep kind of wacky reason for deletion, the article should be cleaned of hype and criticism, but there is plenty of external coverage. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22asmallworld%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C32 Shii (tock) 19:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want/have the time to check the guidelines for inclusion now, but the link provided by Shii seems a good start (if it is not disguised promotion). I'd like a good article on ASW because I only had very limited information and, when I were looking forward to know more, Wikipedia was my first stop. --Error (talk) 23:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per views, and the large amount of reliable secondary sources that are available, for example here & here - and especially, because it was a very dull & time-wasting AfD nomination from the very beginning. --IIIraute (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Improper nomination. Non-admin close. Safiel (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this article up for deletion since it has been listed as containing non-neutral content (advertising) for a long time. I also think think the page lacks notability WP:CORP. To wit, the content on this page links directly to promotion pieces put out by asmallworld when it launched and asmallworld has an extremely low ALEXA ranking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyoksorta (talk • contribs) 13:39, March 31, 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Tawker (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Detective[edit]

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

This is the first time I request the deletion of a disambiguation page, but considering WP:DFD never took off, I'm guessing I have to do it here.

Anyway, I think this disambiguation page is an unnecessary hurdle to arrive at each of these 2 articles. WP:HATNOTE clearly applies here.

Now, I guess the obstacle is choosing which article to be located at True Detective while the other gets "hatnote" treatment. I think it's fairly obvious that the TV series article is far more popular than the other article ever was, but I'm open to other arguments. In any case, no matter who gets hatnote treatment, I am still 100% sure that this disambiguation page should be deleted. Feedback ^☎ 17:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This deletion seems just another attempt to move a battle from one field to another. There already was a failed move request, consensus was not reached to move the TV series article, and this AfD only seeks to skirt around and disregard that failed move request determination. We don't get to rehash this over and over again, moving the battlefield each time, with new tricks and procedures--such behavior borders on tendentious editing. This disambiguation page is appropriate per WP:TWODABS, and should be kept. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered this silly accusation on my talk page, but I'll answer it here too. I hadn't read TD before today and couldn't care less about renaming the article. It could keep the parenthetical if you want; what I'm looking for is the elimination of this 2-article disambiguation page. Feedback ^☎ 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should probably read WP:TWODABS...this is a perfectly acceptable and common practice. Get off your high horse.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - no reason to delete a perfectly appropriate disambiguation page and to do so would only ignite another round of debate over which is WP:PRIMARY, a no-win situation for all. Montanabw^(talk) 03:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True Detective (magazine) is a stub that refers to completely unrelated magazines that should probably have their own articles if anyone ever wanted to write them. True Detective (magazine) should really be a disambiguation page of its own. There is really no controversy here as to which is the primary topic. Feedback ^☎ 13:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to keep rehashing that argument after consensus has said otherwise, I know admins who would gladly use the banhammer. Your attitude, against that consensus, is verging on tendentious editing and battlefield mentality.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has already been fully discussed on the talkpage. Perfectly acceptable disambiguation page per WP:TWODABS when no primary topic has been determined. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that one of the entities, True Detective (magazine) should be a disambiguation page of its own. I really don't see how conglomerating three distinct magazines into one article is appropriate. And I also don't see how a list of 3 different subjects could be considered the "primary topic", when it is in fact a list of different topics. Feedback ^☎ 18:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 3 valid enties, Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite being a small page, it does what it's suppose to. I agree that most people are probably looking for the TV series, but it still does not negate the magazine, which is probably notable to some older (and perhaps less techno-savvy) users of Wikipedia. What is not entirely clear is whether the same magazine was re-released on two separate occasions or if it is (they are) three different magazines. If the latter is true, then surely the argument to keep this page is only strengthened - as future users may wish to expand the magazine article into three separate articles.Ctfn 15:12, 03 April 2014 (BST)
Keep Although right now the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is probably the tv show, in WP:10YT it probably won't be anymore, and the magazines are highly notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:42, 3 April 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. Tawker (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Đurković[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Subject fails WP:NFOOTY.~~ Article cites no sources and thus fails WP:V and WP:BLP. ~~That's three strikes.~~ -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On closer examination I am not sure that this player is not in fact a professional player. I will keep an eye on this discussion in case someone comes up with a more definitive answer. The article still fails V and BLP though. So my delete vote still stands.-Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 31 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) 06:27, 1 April 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Mansale[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you sure these players are not professional? I took a look at the articles and they seem to suggest that they might be. But I am not an expert on international soccer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 31 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. @Ad Orientem:, none of these players play in a fully professional league (though the ythemselves may well be professional players, this is not relevant), nor have they played senior international football, so fail WP:NFOOTY. There is consensus at WP:FOOTY that youth international appearances do not confer notability. The sources in the articles addtionally are merely routine sports journalism. Fenix down (talk) 06:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All- Based on answers to my question above from Fenix down. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:39, 1 April 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adrienne Armstrong[edit]

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

Yes, she's Billie Joe Armstrong's wife, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from being married to one of the most successful musicians currently alive. This is kind of like Tanya Haden, only Mrs. Armstrong has received even less coverage for reasons unrelated to her celebrity marriage than Haden has. Therefore I think this page should be redirected to Billie Joe's. Jinkinson talk to me 15:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly promotional. Sources generally fail RS. There is nothing here that rings the notability bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor person whose main claim to fame comes through her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. will attempt to find ambassador / if no ambassador recommend prof suspends work until ambassador found Tawker (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GT Advanced Technologies[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP. The only sources in the article are primary and self-published. Article created as part of a school project which appears to have the aim of creating articles for "ALL publicly traded companies", for those "several hundreds of publicly traded companies [that do] not have their corporate entries on Wikipedia" - all this without any regard for notability, of course. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also only has one article that links to it, Soitec. G S Palmer (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to userfication, draft-ification, re-creation, or future un-deletion to a place other than the main encyclopedia provided that any attempt to have an article about this company in the main encyclopedia will not be allowed unless it clearly demonstrates that the company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment regarding educational program The ambassador working with this class needs to be brought into this discussion so he can work with the professor(s) and student(s) to make sure that such articles are not created in the future as part of this class assignment. If there is no assigned ambassador, the closing administrator should contact the professor(s) involved and politely but firmly encourage (and if necessary, insist) that they require their students to follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines and recommend that the professor(s) to suspend work until an ambassador can be assigned to work with them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:33, 31 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. Tawker (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Technologies[edit]

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

Despite being mentioned in a few news sources, it doesn't appear to me that this small company meets our notability standards, see WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy and notability seems questionable Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an ad, not an encyclopedia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:22, 6 April 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. Tawker (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative rock[edit]

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

Contested PROD with no rationale supplied. Unsourced article on, as far as I can ascertain, non-existant ' musical genre' TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It isn't very well written, either. G S Palmer (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, can't even really identify the subject from the article. — Gwalla | Talk 16:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely made up original research. Could almost be a speedy under WP:G3 or WP:A7. - Pmedema (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't really fit either of those CSD criteria (I don't think it's an attempt to mislead, and it's not an individual, animal, organization, web content, or event). Otherwise I would have zapped it myself. — Gwalla | Talk 20:30, 31 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 Héctor Lavoe. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Que Sentimiento[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:N guidelines. I searched for reliable sources that would make the content notable, and couldn't find any besides track listings. GRUcrule (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Héctor Lavoe. I'm unable to find much coverage for this album - the best coming in this book about the artist. If there is not enough material for a standalone article, then at the least, it's a plausible search term as an album by a notable singer. Gongshow talk 17:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Erick (talk) 05:12, 7 April 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. Clearly meets Wikipedia's notability standards per the sources provided by User:Agyle in the discussion. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MazaCoin[edit]

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

Another non-notable cryptocurrency article. The only claim to notability being "the official currency of the Lakota people" which isn't exactly true either. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - currency is new, would probably be better moved to user space until it has gained more usage and coverage. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per Agyle's research (below). Jonpatterns (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - remove ALL non-notable coins from premises. Citation Needed | Talk 20:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just a friendly suggestion to give clear reasons for keeping or deleting an article, for example "keep, met gng with 3 articles in scholarly journals". Reviewers weigh the strengths of arguments, rather than just tally up votes. (Note: Mazacoin does not seem to occur in any scholarly journals or books.) Agyle (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG based on a significant number of articles in a variety of established media over a one month period. Article is still in bad shape, but can be improved with existing sources. There is some information from the sources seems a little inconsistent (e.g., differences in terminology, inconsistency on "official status", etc.), and these present some challenges in covering the topic, but solutions are possible. As an example, when contradictory information is presented in credible sources, both versions can be presented with in-article attribution. A list of arguably-reliable sources currently used in the article (a couple have trivial-to-minor coverage, but most are primarily about MazaCoin).:

Bradbury, Danny (2014-02-06). "Mazacoin Aims to be Sovereign Altcoin for Native Americans". CoinDesk.
Hamill, Jasper (2014-02-27). "The Battle of Little Bitcoin: Native American tribe launches its own cryptocurrency". Forbes.
Sparkes, Matthew (2014-02-28). "Native Americans adopt bitcoin clone as official currency". The Telegraph.
Vincent, James (2014-03-03). "Mazacoin: Native American tribe adopts bitcoin derivative as 'national currency'". The Independent.
Landry, Alysa (2014-03-03). "9 questions surrounding MazaCoin, the Lakota cryptocurrency: answered". Indian Country Today Media Network.
Jeffries, Adrianne (2014-03-05). "Native American tribes adopt Bitcoin-like currency, prepare to battle US government". The Verge.
Hofman, Adam (2014-03-06). "The dawn of the national currency – an exploration of country-based cryptocurrencies". Bitcoin Magazine.
Vigna, Paul (2014-03-07). "Lakota Indian promotes new digital currency, Mazacoin". The Wall Street Journal.
Ramos, Jairo (2014-03-07). "A Native American tribe hopes digital currency boosts its sovereignty". Code Switch: Frontiers of Race, Culture, and Ethnicity. National Public Radio.
Gaylord, Chris (2014-03-22). "Good Reads: From teacher fundraisers, to an atomic timekeeper, to MazaCoin". The Christian Science Monitor.
Sullivan, Gail (2014-03-26). "Everyone in Iceland just got a free wad of digital cash. Will it save their economy?". The Washington Post.

––Agyle (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, if it's being used as an official currency and it has coverage this would pass the GNG. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the claim of "official" is murky (several RSs support it, but The WSJ retracted it), and even the legitimacy of a modern "Lakota Nation" seems controversial, an issue that predates Mazacoin. Agyle (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Microsoft Excel. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Excel Viewer[edit]

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

This article should be redirected (and / or merged) to Microsoft Excel as it doesn't any useful information nor why this product is notable. I haven't any found any reliable sources about the viewer itself. mabdul 11:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It doesn't seem to meet the fourth clause of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. However, I'm not an expert on software, so I may be wrong. G S Palmer (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge regardless of notability per WP:SIZERULE. Would be a good addition to Microsoft Excel article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:39, 1 April 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. Tawker (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mine a Million[edit]

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

Not enough available references. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Make that no references. G S Palmer (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real thing, I seeing ample evidence of that, and it was released in 1965, and renamed in 1970. BoardGameGeek seems to be a reliable source for this sort of thing. I'm not sure about historygamer.com How to find source for things from that long ago, but if it kept selling for years, it must've been popular enough to get some mention somewhere. Dream Focus 02:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)#[reply]
Keep BGG is a reliable source. The worst case would be merger into Waddingtons per WP:ATD. Andrew (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "No references" is a reason to improve the article not delete an article.BankingCrisis (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waddingtons. While BGG is a reliable source, it is merely a singular one, where as establishing notability requires Multiple Reliable Sources. Additionally, the source only establishes that the game exists, but not why it is notable. As the guideline on WP:NOTABILITY states, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". As it stands, the single source thus far found only serves to show that the game exists, and the article itself in its present state serves only as a "How to play" guide, without making any claim of notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I agree with what 64.183.45.226 said. BGG is a directory of every board game ever published, like a phone book, it just proves existence. The game is not particularly favored (ranks around a 5 on BGG which is pretty low), nor rare, except nostalgia value for anyone who played it long ago. I looked for independent coverage and couldn't find anything.. but there may be sources from the 1960s/70s that are harder to locate. Since the article is somewhat developed in the spirit of PRESERVE this AfD can be a warning and if nothing material has changed by a second AfD I would have to support Delete. --GreenC 03:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical game, several wp:rs sources. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:14, 4 April 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Crowe[edit]

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

Contested prod on the grounds that although an WP:NFOOTY failure WP:GNG alas not so clear cut. I believe GNG failure is still clear cut. No indication that the subject has achieved significant reliable coverage on the basis of one cup win. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG... JMHamo (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 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) 21:48, 6 April 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. Tawker (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Howden AFC[edit]

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

Article originally PRODded with the rationale "Very low-level amateur team, never played at a level of football deemed notable by WP:FOOTY.". Disputed with the rationale "Removing PROD. This is not an open or shut case" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:FOOTYN failure, has not played in a national cup nor at a national level of the pyramid. No indication that the club has garnered significant, reliable, non-routine coverage for any other activities. Fenix down (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable team. Giant Snowman 11:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Needs to be a shut case. Szzuk (talk) 20:30, 31 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. Tawker (talk) 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jat Sikh clans of Jalandhar Division[edit]

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

does not have notability and the references does not match the claim Shrikanthv (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I say on the article's talk page: "It cited a 1984 reprint of the Imperial Gazetteer of India Provincial Series, Punjab, Volume 1, 1908, as "volume 2" and referred to its contents as data from the Census of India 1911! Worse, it is copied from different editions of the Provincial and District Gazetteers of British India, some from 1912, some from 1931. It has synthesized information. It should be removed from Wikipedia."

The British in England were 30 years ahead of the British in India: the first census of Britain was held in 1841 (to India's in 1871). If this article is kept, then why shouldn't I be allowed to copy the first census and make one page for every village in England? Fowler&fowler «Talk» 08:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Fowler&fowler. Jim Carter ⁽^talk⁾ 00:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fowler's reasoning. Enigma^msg 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,Fowler has given a good reason for the deletion.--Skr15081997 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 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. Tawker (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shiatzy Chen[edit]

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

I am quite sure the firm is notable. But the article seems to be very highly promotional, with multiple adjectives and sentences and paragraphs) of praise and puffery. I think it is beyond fixing by editing, and would need to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 08:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw this while populating the List of fashion designers and while I did add her, I shuddered. I agree that it is probably notable, but DOES need to be strafed with fire and recreated properly. Mabalu (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion One option could be to create a very straightforward article for the founder, and redirect this page there. Mabalu (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Following a quick hacking out of all the repetition/blaffle/promo, and reorganising it, I think there's a lot of material here to show notability. The references will need to be double checked and verified, but sources such as the first one, with its extensive commentary on the brand and the designs, are REALLY strong and a cut above what you usually get. Mabalu (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Forbes calls it one of the most successful Taiwanese luxury brands, and its founder one of the 25 most influential ethnic Chinese designers worldwide. The article has lots of problems, but they can be fixed without resorting to deletion. -Zanhe (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google Mars[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, no citations whatsoever, the only claim of notability in the article is how the service is included with Google Earth. The ChampionMan 1234 06:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable. Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. Source examples:

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's pretty compelling evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While the NASA sources are not independent (this is a Google collaboration with NASA), Northamerica1000's other source finds are independent reliable sources in enough depth to satisfy WP:GNG. The article could use better references, but this is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; evidence of notability has been shown, to satisfy WP:GNG. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --The subject is already notable, as shown by NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰; it will likely become more vital in at least the science and education realms as it gets developed further. (e.g., it's already a recommended site at Science Mars.) - Gorthian (talk) 19:15, 4 April 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Riedinger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG JMHamo (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep. Mostly bit actor, but has won some Leo Awards. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 18 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) 02:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP The Banner talk 12:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced BLP. I might find the winning of Leos persuasive if the article actually mentioned and sourced that fact at all (but with the Leos being regional rather than national in scope, that would still depend on what category or categories he won in and how well it could be sourced.) Delete unless the article starts seeing real sourcing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 29 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, → Call me Hahc21 06:05, 31 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CubicTest[edit]

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

unreferenced, does not meet WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 17 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 24 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, → Call me Hahc21 06:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dogtail[edit]

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

Self-published or trivial references. I can't find any material to support WP:GNG or other notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 17 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While this software technology may be on the rise and eventually clear the notability threshold, so far it seems to be premature to warrant full Wikipedia article status. It looks like much of the "coverage" of it is in an online "magazine" (those quotes are all deliberate) published by the distributor of the software ("published" might warrant quotes as well), which to me is a signal that it lacks inherent notability (the cart is coming before the horse). I could not find multiple instances of significant coverage in independent reliable third-party secondary sources with editorial oversight and broad public distribution/ appeal. Yet. KDS4444^Talk 09:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is notable enough for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScotXW (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 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, → Call me Hahc21 06:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article of unclear notability. The redhat magazine refs are RS coverage, but all by the same author, Len DiMaggio, in the same magazine, and primarily how-to articles. In the absence of additional RS coverage, notability is not established. A search revealed blogs, but no additional RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA 'Ldimaggi' who may well be the author of those redhat articles given the similar name.Dialectric (talk) 07:07, 1 April 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Islamic and Secular Studies[edit]

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

Total absence of evidence. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a high school, and meets notability standard wp:NHS as far as i can tell. It is verifiable, e.g. this link verifying, found easily by noticing the school is listed in List of secondary schools in Mauritius and then looking at references in that list-article. The lack of references in the article itself suggests tagging is appropriate, but the topic seems notable. --do ncr am 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a secondary school, kept by long-standing precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no references independently supporting notability. Neutrality^talk 21:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks references to even prove this is a real institution.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 22 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, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless the author can find some sources. Thus far, nothing has demonstrated that it is notable....or even exists. Bali88 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced so no sources to verify existence. LibStar (talk) 05:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick Google search will confirm it exists (you could actually do that in the time it takes to claim its existence is not confirmed!), although I can find no substantial coverage. Nevertheless, as a secondary school... -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - it exists. ansh666 05:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on ansh666's link, it seems to exist. Could use some more information, but definitely should stick around until then. Adamh4 (talk) 21:30, 27 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, → Call me Hahc21 05:37, 31 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. article does require cleanup, but AfD != Cleanup... Nominator stated doubtful notability, erring on the side of inclusionism here. Tawker (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Reynolds (correspondent)[edit]

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

Doubtful notability, likely self-promotion. The only sources are to his employer's staff directory and to the alumni list at his school. "External links" only links to his Twitter and Facebook accounts. kashmiri ^TALK 00:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- BBC Foreign correspondents frequently broadcast as part of BBC natioanl and international news bulletins and programmes. They are accordingly certainly notable. I do not necessarily take that view of those who report merely on regional bulletins. It is not a good article, and needs a lot of improvement, including better sourcing, but that is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 24 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, → Call me Hahc21 05:35, 31 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) 07:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James Parey[edit]

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

Unremarkable junior basketball coach, fails WP:NBASKETBALL, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No real independent reliable sources, and AAU coaches most definitely don't have a presumption of notability. Also, from the creator's username it sounds like it could be a vanity article. Not sure under what grounds the PROD was removed, but it shouldn't have been. Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I find this to be a clear case of WP:VANITY. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Northern Antarctica (₵) 15:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. In all likelihood a vanity page. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This guy is not even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear case. Snow?BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:32, 3 April 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. Meets A7 CSD, given lack of discussion I don't see point of re-listing. Tawker (talk) 19:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brosix Inc.[edit]

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

Article doesn't appear to meet WP:NSOFT. The sole claim-to-fame is the About.com Reader's Choice Awards, which are given in many, many categories, and don't appear to be very significant. The ridiculous quantity of flimsy sources (now removed) is the hallmark of Wiki-PR edits. Article was previously drafted by a sock of Morning277. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:20, 31 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) 01:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tat Wood[edit]

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

Tat Wood's only claim to notability is the fact that he has written/edited a few Doctor Who articles, hardly enough to justify a Wikipedia article of his own. G S Palmer (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This [25] helps establish notability. It should be pointed out that this was only nominated for AfD because of a dispute on another page. [26]. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 05:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I nominated it because of this. G S Palmer (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The About Time series of books are not merely "a few articles", but a multi-volume critical history of Doctor Who. They are widely cited and discussed in scholarly analyses of the programme, such as Doctor Who and Philosophy and the works of Phil Sandifer. Clearly meets criterion #1 under WP:AUTHOR, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination statement is at the very least disingenuous. Eric Corbett 11:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple professional reviews have been posted to talk pages. This Whoniverse dispute seems to be getting more lame as time goes on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the talk page in question is Talk:Whoniverse#Notability of Tat Wood. (That might not be immediately clear to someone coming to this page for general AfD purposes.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 21:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the one who tagged this biography as being of questionable notability back in 2011, but based on what I've seen now I think he clears the (relatively low) bar set by WP:BIO. Mind you, that's only a judgement on whether this article should be kept, not on whether or not he should be used as a source in another article. (Disclosure: I was notified of this AFD by User:41.132.48.255 [27].) Robofish (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above arguments and trout slap for misleading AfD nom statement. Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Eric Corbett and Montanabw. It was not my intent to be "disingenuous" or "misleading". G S Palmer (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, an link to an essay I've never seen before! Thanks very much! Eric Corbett 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad to have been able to help expand your horizons! G S Palmer (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mild delete. I haven't followed the Whoniverse debate referenced above. I have, however, met Tat Wood on many occasions. This probably is sufficient bias for me not to contribute here! But, FWIW, I struggle to see how this article merits inclusion. There are no citations provided which are about Tat from a biographical perspective: this article can never expand beyond a stub because no such citations exist. The article has three citations: (1) is by his publisher, (2) says he edited a fanzine (does it say anything more than that?), and (3) is a fanzine article he wrote reproduced in a book of fanzine articles. That does not meet WP:GNG. The idea he meets WP:AUTHOR #1 presumes Dr Who fandom is a sufficiently large scholarly community for this to apply, and then you have to argue that Tat is considered an important figure in that community. Both of those seem very debatable to me. There are, I'm sure, several reviews and citations of the About Time series, but then have an article on them. But maybe age has turned me into a deletionist. ((Disclosure: I was also notified of this AFD by User:41.132.48.255. I don't know who this is, and I wonder whether they thought I'd rush here to say "keep"!) Bondegezou (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- PS: Referring to "Doctor Who and Philosophy and the works of Phil Sandifer" or the About Time series as scholarly, it seems to me, is pushing the definition of "scholarly". Doctor Who: The Unfolding Text is scholarly. About Time, Doctor Who and Philosophy and Sandifer's writings are popularisations targetted at a fan audience. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The person who nominated the article for deletion failed to notify editors of its AfD status. I went through the edit history of both the Tat Wood article, as well as other related articles leaving messages for people who had edited there to take part in this AfD nomination, in order to get a fair, balanced consensus, rather than just 2 or 3 people. 41.132.48.255 (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO in particular the sources given above. Article not perfect, but the analysis of his work in secondary sources does it for me. BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Holland[edit]

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

Not yet notable , and so highly promotional that it needs to be deleted and started over in any case. As for notability: she has written one book, found in 124 libraries a/c Worldcat, which is trivial for an important cookbook. (There's another due out in 2014, mentioned prominently in the introduction, and perhaps the advance publicity for it is not unrelated to the appearance of this article.) She's made many talk show appearances, and worked in a great variety of restaurants, some of them well-known. I do not see that she is principally responsible for the cuisine of any notable restaurant. Most of the prizes are very minor, and local, tho I will admit local prizes in SF have a relatively high value, as local prizes go.

As for promotionalism, besides an early biography suitable more for someone of much greater renown, is the inclusion of the recipes she has reprinted elsewhere and her talk show appearances, and all the magazines she has written articles for. It includes the names of all the more famous people and places for whom she has worked--a technique usually called name-dropping.

Accepted by AfC, as is common for this type of article. When I urge the deletion of such articles, I try not to just say "non-notable and promotional" in general terms, but to give specifically the lack of indications of notability , and the specific indications of promotionalism DGG ( talk ) 01:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She hosted a show on Food Network. All together, it seems like she is a relatively prominent chef. Bali88 (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What she did is not important, it is her notability that is needed to be proven. I simply followed the Google link provided and discovered several articles that are about her from such reliable sources such as the San Francisco Gate, Food and Wine magazine and others. She has also been featured on Oprah, CBS, PBS and other networks. These aren't reprinted recipes, but articles and interviews about the woman. Those sources easily establish notability. Now the article is another problem, it is overly promotional but it does not need to be deleted. A good editor is what is needed, not an AfD. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 08:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is coverage about her life and professional career. She appears on a national TV network. If that's not being int he public eye (in her field) then I'm not sure what is. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if any chefs can be notable, she's on the short list BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:40, 3 April 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. Tawker (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Boston Brownstone Fire[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, there are thousands of residential fires around the world each week. No reason at all that this, albeit tragic, event is desrving of an article. Step hen 01:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not seeing a reason this relatively minor fire(if tragic due to the loss of the firefighters) should have an article of its own; no large numbers of casualties, and no widespread or significant damage(like a large portion of a city being damaged). 331dot (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Boston Fire Department#Beacon Street Fire A local story with firefighter casualties would be more appropriate for the main BFD article than broken out on its own. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fires that kill a couple of people are, unfortunately, very common. There will no doubt be lots of press coverage at the moment in the area concerned, but this is not an event of enduring notability. I would not object to a redirect as proposed above, however. Neljack (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is it that the Yarnell Hill Fire has that this one doesn't? And don't give me that "Otherstuffexists" bullshit, there's no question that the Yarnell Hill fire article is notable. Is it just that this was a routine, ho-hum, run of the mill nine-alarm house fire that just so happened to kill 2 firefighters, hospitalize 16 other people and prompt the city of Boston to hold the firefighters' funeral? And if it's so common, why didn't any other Boston firefighters die on the job in the preceding five years? Now to be clear, I'm very much on the fence with regard to notability here, and would probably be OK with a redirect as proposed above. However I'm not convinced by all these editors whipping out their crystal balls and then declaring that people will forget about this in a few weeks or so. Also, the stories compiled at this link should debunk any claims that this hasn't gotten much coverage outside "the area concerned." Jinkinson talk to me 02:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A significantly higher death toll. Neljack (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Yarnell Hill Fire has a great deal of analysis in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 15:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's absolutely ignorant to question whether to delete an article based on the casualties in other words how many people died. Even though Im the one who created this article I support Jinkinson with, its very unlikely for a Firefighter to die on the job. Like he said its been five years since a death before this fire. Also I support in keeping this article because even though theirs fire's every week around the world, its unlikely for a Firefighter to die and if so would gain as much publicity as this article would. User:EK728 3:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not "ignorant"; casualties are an indication of notability. If every residential fire with two deaths merited an article, we would have thousands more articles. I am not opposed to a redirect. 331dot (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as Nate says. G S Palmer (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fire has received more attention than any other Boston fire in the last 8 years(trends link just 1 source out of many possible). This will continue to be in the news as investigations are undertaken and reports are issued. After some considerable cleanup I believe this article will have considerable encyclopedic value like the majority of other fire articles on Wikipedia, providing information on what went wrong here and how it can be avoided in the future. It's comparatively small sure, but so are most 'disasters' that the US focuses intensely on for very long periods of time. It will also probably have to be moved to Beacon Street Fire instead of Brownstone Fire. It can always be deleted later if it truly fizzles out. Varixai (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This fire is not even close to the scale of those fires. 331dot (talk) 11:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boston Fire Department#Beacon Street Fire, this fire has had an impact yes but there is nothing I can see being notable other than news coverage. As stated above around the world there are many fires with sad outcomes and although built in 1889, the brownstone is not labeled as historical but will be saved. Nothing in the reliable sources given stands out as being notable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Changed my opinion to keep based on User:Jinkinson's finding, see my comment below. Coverage has been ongoing for days now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, tragic and of local interest does not mean it deserves an article. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. The notion that the article could be deleted if it "truly fizzles out" is exactly backwards: the subject might qualify for an article, a few years down the road, if it stands the test of time. It's hardly callous to point out that there are many fires, around the world, in which firefighters die. Boston alone has nearly a hundred and fifty occasions when firefighters have died in the line of duty, according to the BFD website. Should this subject gain an enduring impact -- and we can't tell that for a year or two -- the issue can be revisited then. Ravenswing 20:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it has nothing to do with millions of residential fires happening every week. Its more to do with the fact that is WP:NOTNEWS. Whilst the loss of life is regrettable there's nothing substantial in this article, plus parts of it look paraphrased. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very sad, but where's the WP:LASTING significance? As others have noted, events like this are common in firefighting. Tragic for those affected, but not unusual enough to meet WP:EVENT. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a section to this article (the funeral section), so I think that now, there is something substantial in this article. Also, I thought it might be helpful to put the two deaths caused by this fire into further perspective by noting that 22 firefighters died in 2012 during fireground operations. [28] Jinkinson talk to me 23:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of you guys made an article bout some shooting at Fort Hood today, four dead. This one has two dead. Not a big difference plus its more of an honor thing to the people who died serving our country then creating some article bout a terrorists attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoFace728 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Strike sock of indeffed article creator Step hen 09:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Has not received significant coverage outside of short news cycle. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The funerals are receiving a lot of attention [29] 10,000 firefighters is a big number. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is an unusual fire that has received unusual amounts of attention as indicated by the sources and comments above. At worst, it is a case for merge+redirect - certainly no reason for the fire not to be covered at the department's page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the story continues to receive wide national (and not just local and regional) attention than is typical for stories of this type. E.g. here is a sample of national coverage just for today: LA Times [30], Wash Post [31], CNN[32], FoxNews[33], etc. Also, apparently this event has already lead to a change in the Massachusetts legislation, see [34]. Nsk92 (talk) 03:13, 5 April 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) 07:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Till Death Do Us Part: Love, Marriage and the Mind of the Killer Spouse[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it doesn't have any sources. G S Palmer (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, and no text to give me any reason to read it as anything other than WP:PROMOTIONAL GRUcrule (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be promotional with no substantial or 3rd party coverage. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything meaningful in Google and there's no sources on the page of any use.BennyHillbilly (talk) 09:42, 3 April 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. Article needs cleanup, but AfD != cleanup, notability isn't the issue here Tawker (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

California Children's Services[edit]

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

Notable, even tho a single state. But entirely promotional in style:i t exactly resembles what the program might want as a press release.:No outside sources--everything is from the department.

Talks only about their success, not on any lack of success--one would assume all the programs did 100% of what they were supposed to. Emphasis on exact eligibility requirements--these details are relevant only for prospective enrollees,not general readers. Talks about details of funding and exact differentiation from allied programs in bureaucratic detail, listing each state code section. Some things are missing: information about the basic question of how the services are actually delivered: do they fund existing health service, fund new ones, provide specific programs, provide health care directly; public acceptance, or any information showing uptake or effectiveness.--but those are probably the main things the public might want to know.

The distinction between encyclopedic writing and promotionalism is that promotionalism writes about what the organization want to say, but encyclopedic writing is about what the public might want to find out in an encyclopedia.

Finally, written in bullet points, not paragraphs, and ending in a optimistic but out of date section about prospects for the future. DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator directly stated the article is notable. The main basis for deletion is that the article does not include all relevant pieces of information, which is an issue that should be solved by adding the needed information. All of the issues listed can be fixed through editing.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, this article is well referenced. incomplete information IS NOT a deletion criteria. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 22:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Notable, sourced. DGG, i like your seeking to have articles improved, but shouldn't this just be tagged for improvement. I'm not sure how you can bring it to general attention. Perhaps a post at WikiProject California? But then most WikiProjects are pretty dead now. It is not for AFD participants to do the improvement, though. --do ncr am 17:00, 7 April 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.