< 3 March	5 March >

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

The result was redirect to Proposed_tall_buildings_and_structures#Abandoned_proposals. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisa Feng Long Center[edit]

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

Unbuilt structure, project apparently cancelled; no indication of notability nor likelihood that it will ever become notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable unbuilt not-a-building. Mangoe (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG now and if it will never exist it can never become notable in the future. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 04:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and add entry to Proposed_tall_buildings_and_structures#Abandoned_proposals.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disney TV schedules[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a television guide. Also, it's unsourced and appears to be WP:MADEUP. Call me Keenan (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom; not even correct in any way. Nate • (chatter) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a television programming schedule. - Whpq (talk) 16:23, 10 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 Talking bird (mimic). If there is any content worth salvaging to merge to Talking bird (mimic), it can be recuperated from the article history. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talking bird (cognition)[edit]

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

This article can simply have its content merged with Talking bird (mimic). There is no need for a separate article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Talking_bird_(mimic)#mimic_vs_utter_in_lead_sentence} I think you will see that Talking bird (cognition) is a WP:POVFORK. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete consensus was very clearly that a single article is sufficient. User:CYl7EPTEMA777 was asked to clean up their draft of the article before it was considered for moving to the mainspace, as it did not contain substantial independent or coherent material. However, they failed to prove that such content could be provided. Talking bird (cognition) just "parrots" Talking bird (mimic). ~ Boomur [☎] 02:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about theory not deleted,but this not theory and this proved so hard that nobody could criticize (but even articles about theory not deleted),content deleted DrChrissy and likely you his accounts,this flood and already not trolling and just very terrible speciesism-- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It also might be the case that people had no idea what you meant. Your English, as demonstrated here, is not that easy to understand. I have no idea what 'DrChrissy and likely you his accounts' for example, even means. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

likely you DrChrissy -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on my user page you can see exactly who I am. Unless you have some proof and want to start an SPI, shut it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The editor might have a point! I just looked at your user page and like me...you like to play X-box 360! Were we twin socks separated at birth perhaps? ;-) __DrChrissy (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The article was created against process in violation of a clear consensus that the article was not appropriate. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this article dont POV fork because talking bird (mimic) is species of birds, that can utter the spoken language of humans,and talking birds (cognition) is individual birds among them -- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and this article was in 2 times more big,just they deleted half article (see history)-- CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title of this page Talking bird (cognition) does not make ethological sense. Cognition is the capacity of an animal to understand it's environment. This can be at an extremely low level such as using light to know which way is up and which way is down, or extremely sophisticated cognition such as empathy and theory of mind. By simply slapping "(cognition)" into the title does not in any way distinguish this from birds that mimic. Birds that mimic also have cognitive abilities because they understand that by repeating what a human says, they will get a nut. This article needs a new title if it is to survive.__DrChrissy (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Talking bird (mimic) and pick suitable name. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 00:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

see talk talking bird (mimic) - CYl7EPTEMA777 (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

are you going to vote? - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sidelight12: blocked editors cannot vote. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 07:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now, without prejudice for recreation at a future date. There is probably an article to be written on this particular subject. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:FRINGE. The article is a WP:POVFORK of Talking bird, selling the idea that birds actually understand English, but no WP:RS support this. -- 101.119.15.37 (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. There is no reason why this subject cannot be merged into Talking bird. Steel1943 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's deleted, there is obstacle to retrieve and merge it. Merge and delete are different. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have changed my vote. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Anachronism. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parachronism[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:DICDEF that does not appear to be notable. Several dictionary entries appear in a Google search... and basically nothing else. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anachronism, where it is already mentioned. This is a literary term that shows up in multiple reliable sources in Google, GBooks, and GScholar searches, but rarely more than as a definition. This essay at Tor is the closest I could find to an in-depth discussion. Nonetheless, the term is verifiable and per WP:PRESERVE, we should strive to preserve verifiable content rather than delete it. The term is already mentioned in Anachronism and a short definition there could provide a useful contrast with the more common term. This is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted, too. --Mark viking (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - agree with merging to Anachronism with redirect. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to anachronism. But it's just going to fill that article with even more original research. If TRPoD sees anachronism, he's going to turn it into a stub. I'll add it to the long list of articles that I'll eventually get around to fixing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the use of a red pen to edit Wikipedia is a parachronism :) More seriously, there are reliable sources for the word, such as Merriam-Webster and eve a piece at the Daily Lexeme in the New York Times, which links to a scholarly etymology at the OED. --Mark viking (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Apparently my Google search was having a massively off day. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Movie[edit]

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

Not seeing how this passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. A self-published film, where almost everything in the article is unsourced. No real reliable sources that I could find in a web search, apart from [1], which was a local source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a famous/infamous Andy Warhol movie that was the subject of a controversial obscenity prosecution. A review by Vincent Canby in The New York Times can't be minimized as a "local source". Discussion of the film can be found in books like these: [2] [3][4]. News coverage of the day in papers like [5][6] --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified by Arxiloxos show that the film is notable. --Michig (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more specific search: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- yields literally thousands of sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gracie Barra Montreal[edit]

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

Non-notable training facility - reads like an advertisement Peter Rehse (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only does it read like an ad, but there is no significant independent coverage of it. Every source is either Gracie magazine (not independent) or a passing mention in articles on GSP.Mdtemp (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG and the article's author appears to be the club's head instructor. Papaursa (talk) 21:07, 9 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. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gajendra Junior Basic School[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable primary school. TheLongTone (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and looks like an advertisement. Jim Cartar (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks independent sources (I have looked). Primary schools are usually considered non-notable, absent particular reasons to the contrary. I can find no such reasons. --Stfg (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. Elementary schools are generally nn and this one appears to be no exception. No reasonable redirect target that I can find. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirect to Education in West Bengal would not be especially helpful.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villains Dance[edit]

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

This article doesn't cite any sources. The subjects of this article don't appear to be notable. This article fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. versace1608 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a: Keep I believe sufficient cites have been added to reflist per guidelines and upon review this band has met WP:BAND and WP:GNG criterium. I am having a difficult time understanding how to provide input is why I am simply adding this comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Villainsdance (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC) — Villainsdance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Most of the citations added are not reliable. Wikipedia requires "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. This article needs more sources to proof the notability of the band. versace1608 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable local garage band. No reliable sources, no notability that I can see. Violates neutral point of view and possibly conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More problems User:Villainsdance is redirected to Villains Dance and that's GOT to violate some kind of policy... someplace. Anyway, looks to me to violate WP:COI as well.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sources do not meet GNG/RS. WP:ROUTINE coverage of play dates are not "in depth". Winning a local garage band contest for best cover band is as close as it gets. Not even articles from local newspapers actually covering the band. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the refs satisfy WP:BAND notability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical garage band vanity article, fails WP:BAND, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:12, 6 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) Randykitty (talk) 14:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Universe[edit]

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

Non-notable TV show that ran for a few years in 90s, likely only on local stations. Only reference is to a TV series guide book of some sort, and I can't find anything else online. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:TVSHOW. mikeman67 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was wrong; it appears to be one of those trashy but notable TV shows from the 1990s. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC) ~~Delete Nothing found except the usual publicity given to all TV shows of the era. This one achieved no lasting impact, and so fails WP:GNG. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete There's nothing to indicate that this is a notable program. Simonm223 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm the one who created this article, so I guess I'll chime in here. I created it because I thought that, given the fact that it was syndicated across the nation, it was "notable." Here is its IMDB page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117755/?ref_=nm_ov_bio_lk2 Thanks. Andrew Parodi (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do you have a source it was syndicated nationally? I couldn't find anything that indicated that it was, and my impression was that it was shown only locally (particularly considering the dearth of sources). Generally IMDb isn't considered a WP:RS - WP:CITEIMDB. mikeman67 (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry. I don't. It was shown on Fox affiliates weeknights. It didn't run for long and was not a huge hit, which may explain the lack of info. Andrew Parodi (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listing on TV Guide: http://www.tvguide.com/detail/tv-show.aspx?tvobjectid=440381&more=ucepisodelist&episodeid=897899 Andrew Parodi (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confirms the show existed, but it still doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW, it appears to me. Unfortunately link doesn't even confirm if it aired nationally or not. The lack of WP:RS on this show seems pretty indicative of its lack of notability. I've searched again and still am turning up empty (just some very brief mentions in some books, and they're not too reliable themselves). mikeman67 (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not local programming. It was a late night show on the UPN network starting in mid 1990s. Not a WP:RS but gives a glimpse of the title sequence. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep: I added some references, many relevant trade publication articles were written on the show, which are not easily searchable via google (available on ebsco, I added a few to the article). Its no Stairway to Stardom but its certainly notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I think the sources I've added shows that it meets WP:TVSHOW as well, so the delete votes above are no longer relevant. Its ratings also made the national Neilsens showing it was broadly syndicated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I do see that WP:TVSHOW says that nationally syndicated shows aren't automatically relevant, and its more dependent on the amount of press received (although the fact that it was on the air for so many episodes is certainly a strong point in favour of keeping it). I couldn't find anything on LexisNexis and Factiva, but I did turn up something from ProQuest, which I have added to the page. At this point, I think there is enough information for it to qualify as notable, and I'm okay with withdrawing the nomination (although there is a delete vote so I'm not sure how it works). Thank you for the additional sources and improving the page. mikeman67 (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG and WP:TVSHOW per the sources (added to the article) by User:Milowent. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Stout[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. The only source is a link to his fight record.Mdtemp (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP and fails to meet WP:NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Pamplona[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMMA and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Mdtemp (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:37, 9 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R. Leo Sprinkle[edit]

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

No significant coverage or references of WP:BLP, and fails notability requirements of WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Get rid of the fringe sources. The article should be rewritten using academic sources who discuss Sprinkle in a sociological context rather than credulous UFO/conspiracy books: [7], [8], [9]. Volunteers sorely needed to do this work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All three of those books mention him around once or twice in 300+ pages, and rather incidentally. That doesn't seem like significant coverage, per WP:BIO or WP:PROF, even if they are reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few citations for pop-psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep he's notable, probably enough for WP:PROF but just barely and the article, as it stands, doesn't reflect that notability. Simonm223 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which categories of WP:Prof do you claim are satisfied? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Abysmal GS citation record, absolutely no evidence of passing WP:PROF. No evidence either that any other notability guideline is passed. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record is too meager to provide evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1 and no other sign of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Tagliaferro[edit]

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

I nominate this puff piece for deletion per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, which disallows the writing of promotional articles, and per WP:NOPAY.

Some related side points follow.

The article was created by Chaklalajob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam).

Chaklalajob is an indefinitely-blocked paid advocate and serial sockpuppeteer. If you haven't, please view his Freelancer.com profile: you may be amazed at how many other puff pieces he's also created.

Dear Chaklalajob: Undisclosed paid editing is a cheap and sleazy thing to do. See also the two short cautionary tales at User:Durova/The dark side. Personally, I feel that even disclosed paid editing makes Wikipedia a worse place for the world to get information. Still, if you feel that you must do paid editing, then I request that you please not write new articles. Instead, get Wikipedians to write new articles for you. See WP:BPCOI.

—Unforgettableid (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even the paid editing issue aside, this is a résumé, not an encyclopædia article. There are a handful of minor awards and some incidental coverage, the sort you'd expect to find for any wealthy individual in the finance industry. I'm sure he's a nice person, but does not meet WP:BIO, in my view. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 10 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Lankiveil. No real evidence of notability by Wikipedia standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan Crnkić[edit]

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

The article is a non-relevant self-promotion, which serves only to advertise its subject. Epicgenius (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability per WP:ACADEMIC and is all WP:PEACOCK. The provided references seem self published and the article reads like an advert. Ochiwar (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only tiny presence on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial and self-referential presence in Bosnian sources too.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Labow[edit]

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

Only sources are to press releases, directories, and other insignificant publications. WoS gives 338 citations and an h-index of 9. These are data from March 2013, if somebody thinks it important, I can get more up-to-date ones, although I think this is so far from our usual standards that it is impossible that this would have been improved enough in a year. GScholar gives similar medium-low citation counts. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm neutral about his notability, but here's another reliable source: [10] Jinkinson talk to me 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Being good at your job does not notability make. JFW | T@lk 14:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Short of academic and overall notability.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:19, 9 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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shag Harbour UFO incident[edit]

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

Most of the article has no citations. In the few sections that do, it relies on a single book that isn't a WP:RS, published by what appears to be a pulp publisher. One of the book's authors claims to be a witness to the event. Other sources link to a blog that contain a single news article (and denials anything occurred). Even if valid, WP:NOTNEWS would apply. mikeman67 (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article's sourcing may need a little work in it's current state, more sources can be found. The article has been covered in The Chronicle Herald in 1967 and more recently in 2013 A quick google search comes up with other sources: 1, 2 3. The Canadian government/millitary has some reports available in their archives, there is an annual festival celebrating the incident and it has been the subject of a documentary and multiple books. Admittedly, all together it isn't that much, but considering it happened in 1967 I feel it's enough coverage to make it pass WP:NOTNEWS. Erebus Morgaine ^(Talk) 16:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can you cite some of those books and the documentary? The book referred to right now doesn't appear to be very reliable. Obviously the Herald's stuff is reliable, but that on its own wouldn't establish it as anything more than WP:NOTNEWS, I would think. mikeman67 (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable even if the article is a shambles. I'll put some time into improving it this weekend. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Shag Harbor incident is one of the best-known and most famous UFO cases in Canadian history, so it should probably be kept because of that. Having said that, the article is a disorganized mess and needs some serious editing, imo. 2602:304:691E:5A29:4914:CD8F:9311:890A (talk) 03:31, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable RS have been identified. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reemer[edit]

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

non-notable band TheLongTone (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article claims one single reached #5 on the indie charts, but reference does not support this. All I can find are insubstantial references.TheLongTone (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND and also this article should be tagged too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that if the band article gets deleted the album & Maniac (Reemer song) can be csd tagged: otherwise they can be made into redirects.TheLongTone (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to find evidence of the chart placement or other material which would get this to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gong show 01:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 6 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 speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Body Spirit Activities Central Precepts[edit]

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

Looks like some kind of essay or original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete as essay. Mangoe (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Bartholow[edit]

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

Article about a living person with no evidence of notability and no valid sourcing. The only cited sources are in a list of external links. The first link [11] returns an error, the second one [12] does not appear to have any information about this person, and the third one is a YouTube video. Orlady (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails GNG and BIO by a very wide margin - couldn't find anything about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Argilashki[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. While he has now played in the Bulgarian Cup, both matches were against non-fully-pro opposition. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, has not played in a fully profesisonal league nor senior international football. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only online Bulgarian-language coverage I can find indicates he was fourth goalkeeper for Ludogorets so he had to go on loan to lower division club Pirin. There is some routine mentions of his signing with Ludogorets, and his name appears in a match report for a Bulgarian Cup match, but not enough to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... JMHamo (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 22:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MarketInvoice[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted

It should definitely be deleted. The company is small as per the sources and this article is clearly self-promotional.94.12.89.249 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC) (This is the explanation for the deletion proposal, copied from Talk:MarketInvoice#Self Promotion?)[reply]

Keep The article has an impressive number of reliable news sources and the business has been the recipient of a number of non-trivial awards and is a partner in a notable government financial program. If the language is promotional we should fix that but I do not think we should delete an article about a company with such evidence of notability only because the business does not have many employees. The company is responsible for the movement of tens of millions of pounds a month - that's not a small business. Joja lozzo 00:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an interesting AfD. I shepherded this through AfC some years ago, with no knowledge of the sector or the article's author, and almost none of Wikiprocess. The company is very new and the reportage was largely that it was in existence in an unusual sector - perhaps that aspect is notable. Some of the reportage is brief passing mention, as the BBC which just mentions the company's name in a list of three, that does not confer notability. The article was a first contribution by a new user; it is possible he knew the company or was simply interested in the area and the City, as he also edited Invoice discounting and John Silvester Varley once each (small edits), but there is no evidence of inside involvement or paid editing. The article is not particularly promotional in tone, and while the language is in places slightly 'newsy', that can be put down to a new editor, sourcing from news reports, and interest in the topic. Being a Wired 'Startup of the Week' and so the exclusive topic of a feature article may not guarantee notability but certainly suggests it - it is somewhat short of being an 'award' but represents a substantial mention in a reliable source. The two Daily Telegraph articles, again a substantial discussion in a reliable source, indicate that the journalist involved remained interested over a 3-month period and thought the matter sufficiently newsworthy to discuss twice; of course he may have had a column to fill. The City A.M. Innovation of the Year Award is a notable event for a company. Despite any reservations we may have, and noting as many editors have done over the years that the notability threshold is ridiculously low, this article does clear the bar, resting as it is on its lowest setting. But the mountains will have washed away into the sea before the Notability standard is revised. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - promotional tone can be fixed, and it's now got reasonable coverage from several reliable secondary sources. Ruby Murray 16:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Appears to be WP:GNG and the tone is fixable. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Multiple reliable, independent sources here giving non-trivial coverage. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:19, 5 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, hoax. Friday (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hananisme[edit]

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

Looks like nonsense -- 'hananisme' mostly occurs as a handle of a user called 'hanan'. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, looks like nonsense because it is nonsense.TheLongTone (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G3. An obvious hoax. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Wrestling Bushido[edit]

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

No notable minor promotion. No sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability.LM2000 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero secondary sources so fails GNG. Most of their wrestlers don't have Wikipedia articles too. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Shankar project[edit]

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

Supposed forthcoming film with no sources. Certainly no evidence of having commenced principal photography as required by WP:NFF. There is something formatted as a "ref" here but it only has the name of an actor. User:Magesh23 who created this article has also added the project, unsourced, to the filmography of Ajith Kumar. Was PRODded and PRODsupported, but dePRODded by an IP editor in their only edit. PamD 14:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

obvious delete If it doesn't have a title yet, it's too far out for us. Mangoe (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete for currently lacking verifiability. When we have some sort of coverage, notability can be reassessed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THE FILM SHOOTING WILL START FROM DECEMBER 2014 THIS STORY WAS NARRATED TO RAJINIKANTH BUT HE WAS CONTINUED THE SHELVED PROJECT RANA FOR KS RAVIKUMAR SO HE WAS SUGGESTED THALA FOR THIS ROLE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.75.186 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article without a title, with no context. Should be speedily deleted under no context (A1) or no indication of notability (A7).174.3.125.23 (talk) 17:14, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Igor of Teoco[edit]

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

Non-notable historical figure. This article (and various Wikipedia mirrors) appear to be the only mention of this person to be found online. The sole cited reference is an article about Persia in the late 19th century. If it mentions Igor of Teoco at all, it is likely only in passing as he is surely not the topic of the article. (The article is protected by a paywall, so I have been unable to read beyond the abstract.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:RS Simonm223 (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete Igor?? I smell a hoax. Mangoe (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a 99.99999% likely hoax. It's pronounced eye-gor. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No satisfactory evidence this character existed, in history or legend. Thincat (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the article author has, since this nomination, proceeded to add several meaningless and unrelated references to the article. None of the new references mention "Igor of Teoco". This appears to be a clear case of reference padding for the sake of making the article look more legitimate. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as "Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes"174.3.125.23 (talk) 06:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable references for this. Goblin Face (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted. Szzuk (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BRANCH - non-notable local chapter of UKIP. Recommend delete. Pedro : Chat 12:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. We quite rightly don't have articles on every branch of the Conservative Party, and we shouldn't have one on this UKIP branch either. Quite simply, the UKIP is notable, and this branch is not notable in the grand scheme of things. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I Disagree. The Eastleigh Branch has been instrumental in the change in public opinion. The Eastleigh By-Election saw a massive increase in UKIP Public opinion. Eastleigh has been the cause of the wave of public support for the party. After the By-Election, Ukip, a party that was considered a fringe party, has seem massive gains across the country. This is due to UKIP Eastleigh. This should not be lost to history. It should be documented and recorded. Hdiuk (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General Election 2010: Eastleigh 1,933 votes 3.6%

Eastleigh by-election, 2013 11,571 Votes 27.8% +24% (A Huge Increase in public Support)

This was then followed by the Hampshire county elections where UKIP took 3 Seats in Eastleigh. this is shown on the page and clearly shows the huge increase in public opinion. All eyes have been on Eastleigh and this as I said above, has started the change on a national scale. UKIP Eastleigh is nationally recognized by the media and the party supporters as the most important Branch Hdiuk (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At best, some of the above should be in the UKIP or Eastleigh by-election, 2013 articles - if you can find reliable sources. None of what you have stated justifies a stand alone article as it doesn't establish the notability of the Eastleigh branch of UKIP. Pedro : Chat 13:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Change in public opinion towards the UK Independence party is possibly one of the most important and historic events that has happened for hundreds of years. Certainly of modern times. The fact is, this change could start the collapse of the European Union. The collapse of the EU would be an event that possibly rivals that of the collapse of the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union. Surely the UKIP Branch that started all this is worth recognition in an archive as important as Wikipedia? Hdiuk (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reliable source for the above Hdiuk or is it just your personal opinion? Either way, please also see WP:CRYSTAL. Pedro : Chat 13:54, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand that, any reference to predictions I make on this talk page does not appear in the Article. I am simply pointing out the possibilities and that it would be appropriate for it to be documented for historical value. Will History books not detail how the Rise of UKIP occurred? Hdiuk (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - a tertiary source. If/when books are written about how the Eastleigh branch of UKIP was pivotal in the UK exit of the EU then we can use them as a reliable source in some article or the other. Wikipedia is NOT however about "documenting history". I appreciate your good faith efforts, but you're misunderstanding the purpose of an encyclopedia. Pedro : Chat 14:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to UK Independence Party. The branch itself is not notable: events there are notable in the context of UKIP attempts to become a significant political force.TheLongTone (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not have articles on other local branches of political parties. Material here is covered already elsewhere under the by-election article and relevant local election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Single branches are very rarely notable. This one isn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we don't need an article on every single branch. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added Reference from WikiNews clearly reports UKIP vote was the highest the party ever had in Eastleigh Meaning branch is notable 86.144.171.129 (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No - you're taking a fact that the vote for UKIP was high (which we can source) and using that to claim that this makes the Eastleigh branch of UKIP notable - when the fact actually just makes Eastleigh by-election, 2013 more notable. Pedro : Chat 08:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry but how is this relevant enough for a Wikipedia article? Do you see any other local branches of any other national parties having their own page on Wikipedia? If we did there would be 1000s. If a Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland page was made, there might be a case for adding them as Labour, Lib Dems and Tories have separate pages but that is on the basis of them having seats in the devolved chambers. The other case for adding local branches is for local parties/groups of independents e.g. Barnsley Independent Group or Boston District Independents. UKIP Eastleigh is not an independent local party, it is part of a large national party.

The content of this article could be included in the various articles that exist where relevant eg Eastleigh by-election, 2013, Eastleigh, Borough of Eastleigh or even in the UKIP article where relevant. I'd urge caution with adding info to the UKIP page as people seem to treat it as a news feed by adding things of non encyclopaedic or indeed historical relevance. Owl In The House (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is important to distinguish between events that happen in a by-election such as Eastleigh, from the particular local branch of a given party such as UKIP. Other more notable by-elections such as Bermondsey 1983 or Newport 1922 would not merit individual pages for Bermondsey Liberals or Newport Unionists. I am struggling to think of any branch of a UK political party at any stage in history that might merit an individual page. Suffice to say, I doubt if Eastleigh UKIP would be in my top 1,000. Graemp (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of no importance, it is just a local branch. Szzuk (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The party itself is notable, but local branches aren't. If this one has contributed to the party's success, that should be noted briefly in the appropriate place - the party's article. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis[edit]

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

The article is a content fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. The latter is already in a very "newsy" format, and I do not think it's desirable to have to manage two pages of similar scope, not to mention the related 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine article and the overlaps these two articles have with Euromaidan. Ohc ^¡digame! 12:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was a discussion for splitting the timeline on the talk. Timelines for major current events are notable. There's Timeline of the Euromaidan, Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2013), and Timeline of the Russia–Georgia war.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 13:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep People need to understand what happened when, and a timeline is the most convenient way to present that information.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ohc has nominated a related article, International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis, for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Consensus was to split, is well-sourced. Issues of exactly what should overlap with what are reasons to be hashed out on talk pages, not via wholesale deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We cannot put all of the details on here on to the 2014 Crimean crisis article, it would be overwhelmed. I hope that this article will be maintained. It has had little activity so far (perhaps because the crisis is cooling down). --Tocino 05:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is on an ongoing event, so its obviously going to read a bit like a news report. This is an issue that can be fixed through editing.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Best source for many is this page. 88.250.71.19 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons stated above. Orser67 (talk) 15:30, 6 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) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intramural (film)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:FFILM. There are a handful of website references that indicate that filming might be scheduled but it hasn't been released or reviewed by anyone yet. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the film shoot date and test screening release date. DepressedPer (talk) 1:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The filmmakers plan to release the film around the 2014 NFL season. DepressedPer (talk) 3:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well... a release date doesn't really mean anything. Something can still achieve notability before its release. We have to have enough coverage in reliable sources to show notability per WP:NFF (future films). Offhand I noted that more than a few have issues because they're primary sources ([13], [14]), routine database-type listings ([15]), or articles written by an alumni publication for the college the director attended ([16]). We can't really use any of those to show notability. Now when it comes to the other sources, the one from ComingSoon.net looks to be a reprint of a press release, which is considered to be a WP:PRIMARY source regardless of where it is posted. The Austinot is a blog that seems to accept submissions from a wide variety of people, so I don't think it'd be the exception to the WP:BLOG rule. I think you could use it for some smaller things, but I wouldn't hinge notability upon it. Now as far as the rest goes, those look good. The Austin Fusion Magazine article was written by a staff member, The Wrap is always good as a RS, and the ABJ is good as well. It's a good start, but to really cement notability for an unreleased film, we need more. I'll see what I can find, but offhand I'm thinking that this might be a bit too soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That said, we might be able to rationalize an article for the director since he's done a previous work that has received at least one review. I'm not finding a huge amount out there for the film, but if I can't find enough for NFF purposes what would happen is that we'd make the director's article and redirect Intramural to there, but with the history intact so that when/if it gets more coverage we can always un-redirect and have the article history to pull from. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:44, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a borderline weak keep, but there is coverage of the production before, during, and after. True, much of it is local, but we have coverage that isn't. It's very, very close but I think it just manages to squeak by WP:NFF. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 6. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 13:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similar findings to Tokyogirl79. Not the most notable film project out there, and I'd probably re-vote to delete if this ultimately doesn't get released, but as it presently looks I'd say it's just notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to its scheduled premiere at the Tribeca Film Festival. DepressedPer (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability seems to be established. --do ncr am 15:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've created a page for the director and if by some chance (which looks somewhat slim at this point) that this is deleted, this should redirect to Andrew Disney with the history intact. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have the confirmation missed by the nominator that the project has completed filming, and we do have coverage, WP:NF is met. Seems a no-brainer keep. Perhaps the nom might consider a withdrawal? Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics and Informatics Quarterly[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No independent sources (actually, cannot even find a real homepage), does not seem to be indexed in any bibliographic database. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. (Note: The article was apparently recreated 2 or 3 weeks after deletion at the previous AFD by a now-blocked user. However, G5 was denied because article is sufficiently different from version that was deleted after the previous AFD). Randykitty (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands. I declined speedy as it seemed to me sufficiently different to the previous version (which RK couldn't see, of course - always a problem with G4). One difference was that there were references. Having looked into these, I cannot say that they do anything for me in the way of establishing notability. Either non-independent (the 'olympiads' one), just a mention (the IMTS one) or simply not accessible (the Google Books one, which tells us that the mag title is found on one page). Anyone with access to the book, please let us know what's there. Peridon (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of evidence of passing any of the WP:NJournals criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 9 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

William Lundy[edit]

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

I'd say this is a borderline G10, but the subject is deceased, so an AfD is possibly the best place for this. Basically, the article is one big mess, full of poorly sourced or totally unsourced claims, and at most, the guy is notable for one thing. A Google search turns up one local source, and almost everything else is blatantly unreliable, or clearly about someone else. In short; he doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER, doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, and the article itself needs WP:TNT applying. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass GNG or SOLDIER; no coverage more than a passing mention. Incidentally, Life published photos of him as one of the "last veterans" in 1949, in 1953 and again in 1956, but in the 60 years since then they've changed their mind; now they classify him as a hoaxer. Either way, it's not enough to make him notable by our standards. — Scott • talk 13:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He seems to be a notable enough hoaxer. He gets a couple of pages in Civil War Tales of the Tennessee Valley (pp. 207-8) as a "veteran". There's his application for a pension as a vet.[17], the Life mentions,[18], even a post-death controversy over a Confederate flag over his memorial[19] and sundry others.[20] Clarityfiend (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First source is routine coverage, as they're just interviewing for people in the area - this also makes it a local source. His pension details are utterly irrelevant, and have no notability. The Life picture does not give anything close to in-depth coverage. The source that you use for talking about "controversy over the flag" is both highly unreliable (Fox News), appears to be a local branch of the unreliable source, and is most definitely not in-depth coverage either. The "Florida Memory" thing is just a routine databasing of an old photo, and nothing more. Nothing you produce here comes close to showing notability. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A man is noted enough through the 1950s to show up repeatedly in the news of the day (many AP stories are easily found at google.com/newspapers, for example [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28], and here's Sports Illustrated in 1954 [29]), gets a gold medal from Congress [30][31], is commemorated with a Confederate Memorial Park that becomes a source of prolonged controversy [32] [33][34]; then turns out to be a fake? [35] Passes GNG, and deletion brings no benefit to the encyclopedia. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject easily crosses notability threshold and AfD is not cleanup. That subject's claims may now be in question does not obviate the press coverage, Congressional attention, and other references. If he's a notable fake, notability is not temporary even if his claims are now in doubt. - Dravecky (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The last survivor of a war, even if disputed, is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 10 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. Materialscientist (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kilmoon[edit]

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

A strange mix of a Protestant, Roman Catholic and Civil parish The Banner talk 11:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No legitimate reason provided for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know nonsense is a legitimate reason for deletion. The Banner talk 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Seems to me there no Reason for deletion meets WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps each of the three is notable on its own. This mix is just nonsense and creates a non-existing entity. The Banner talk

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

Speedy Keep Seems the only reason(such as it is) the nominator can give for deletion is that this parish mixes religious faiths. Seems to be a bad faith nomination. Mabalu (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is just nonsense in the present form. The Banner talk 14:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Mabalu (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears WP:NOTABLE and it's well-sourced. I see no reason to delete. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Three subjects in one article... The Banner talk 15:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the three subjects go together (as this one does), then they should have their own article together. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 17:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, they are not even identical. The Banner talk 23:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The article subject is clear: the civil parish of Kilmoon. Its a proper sbject for an article: the fact that the article is a bit odf a mess is not grounds for deletion.TheLongTone (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination is ridiculous. Eric Corbett 19:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: bad faith and pointy nomination. Big trouting to the nominator who appears to be engaged in some form of campaign against Blofeld. - SchroCat (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, SchroCat. I am not busy with a campaign aginst dr Blofeld. And I am not grave dancing. I have just nominated an article that is too bad to keep as it is a mix of three different parishes. Your protection-campaign for Blofeld is heart warming, but it also means that you are protecting his sloppy work around civil parishes. The Banner talk 00:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't get it. The article is about a clearly-defined, geographic area. So some of its history is religious, a common situation and an important part of the area's history. Article has sources to back facts, trivial as they may be. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 04:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is comprehensive and outline's the geographic area's relevance in both civil and religious contexts. -- Caponer (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient reliable sources provided to meet general notability of (small) geographic area. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Bad faith nomination. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Civil parishes are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Berenguer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of reasonable notability. Sources given are not independent. Subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. Safiel (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have some questions about Pixable too, but at least that has received some coverage. The subject here hasn't really and the sources in question (which include LinkedIn and his own company's website) don't confer notability by way of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Stalwart111 03:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOT#CV. The article reads like a CV, is heavily cited to primary sources or directories. The only citation that is from an RS makes only trivial mention of the start-up created by Berenguer. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:12, 4 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. G12 Copyright violation of http://westendss.eq.edu.au/wcms/index.php/our-school15/history51; proper capitalization redirected to West End, Queensland#Education Cindy(talk) 05:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

West end state school[edit]

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

This primary school (ages 6 to 12) does not meet the notability guidelines for a standalone article. I attempted to merge this article into the article of the school town, but the merge was reverted. WWGB (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NHS says to keep all pages on schools if notability can be verified. If we could get some sources (I don't have the time right now for any big reference search), then it'd be an automatic keep, but delete as it is right now. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West End, Queensland#Education where sufficient information is contained. Whilst high schools are considered notable this presumption does not apply to elementary schools. This school does not meet WP:ORG so the redirect is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted Maximhussey to this discussion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC) t[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 5 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 Userfy. I'll userfy this article to User:Samshersinghbeniyaaz/Don't Quit Youngistaan, the article should not be moved back into mainspace before meeting WP:NFILMS has been ascertained. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quit... youngistan[edit]

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

No indication of notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (films). Can't find any mention of it online apart from the film makers' website, and the APN News reference given doesn't mention the film. Ruby Murray 09:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 09:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruby Murray 09:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All facts must be verifiable and the APN citation appears to simply source the statement "It is being produced by Chhandam Films which launched 6 films on the same day of 31st-December-2013".[36] Whether or not a mention that Chhandam Films happened to release 6 films on December 31 belongs in an article about a different and unreleased film is a bit of trivia best left to an editorial decision. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or userfy as simply being a bit too soon and not having the wider coverage required to meet WP:NFF paragraph 3. Principle filming appears underway,[37] but we lack coverage in reliable sources. Allow undeletion or recreation once WP:NF is met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does not meet WP:NFILMS. Article was speedy deleted thrice with the title Don't Quit Youngistaan as WP:G11. When asked by the creating editor I suggested him to request userfication, await film release (likely more sources), and WP:AFC rather than a direct move into article space. Sam Sailor ^Sing 11:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Thanks for nominating this. I agree with MichaelQSchmidt that it is too soon for this article and coverage does not exist to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (films). - tucoxn\^talk 23:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional references have been provided now.Kindly have a relook and reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samshersinghbeniyaaz (talk • contribs) 11:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

None of the new references mention the film, and some don't even mention the company that's making it. Ruby Murray 13:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ruby Murray: none of the references, even the new ones, contribute to the film's notability. My opinion remains unchanged at this point. - tucoxn\^talk 20:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NF. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose that this page is deleted then shouldn't it be completely deleted?Why when we type ta deleted page's subject name on Google that article still appears that says that this page has been deleted.It is like an insult to the subject that the concerned page is deleted.My point is that it should be totally deleted and not appear when we search in Google or wikipedia.Kindly throw some light on this regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samshersinghbeniyaaz (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is one good reason to think about whether a subject is notable enough before posting an article. Every article added to Wikipedia is indexed by Google, usually within minutes. Wikipedia does not control Google, and cannot remove an article from Google's indexes when it is deleted; but after a few days a deleted article will drop off Google's lists and will no longer come up in searches. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There isn't the proverbival snowball's chance of this getting deleted. I'll also note that the size of the parent article that's referred to is in fact at the level where spinoffs are entirely appropriate. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

International reaction to the 2014 Crimean crisis[edit]

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

This article is an overlinked, overflagged and over-quoted bunch of unencyclopaedic sound bites. I suggest replacing the entire contents with:

"International reaction to the Crimean crisis has largely been condemnatory of Russia's decision to intervene, supportive of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, while also supportive of finding a quick end to the crisis. The United States and the European Union have threatened sanctions against Russia for its role in the crisis. The United Nations Security Council has held three emergency sessions since February 28. The G7 bloc of developed nations (the G8 minus Russia) have made a joint statement condemning Russia and announcing that they will suspend preparations for the upcoming G8 summit in Sochi, scheduled to be held in June."

Oh, what a coincidence, that's what's already here. Delete and redirect. Ohc ^¡digame! 09:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The varied international reactions are quite relevant to the subject. 58.164.28.31 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I don't think we need to mention the official reaction of every country that made one, and I really don't think it needs its own separate article. Quite a few of the responses don't seem notable to me, just one or two sentences condemning Russia's actions and calling for a peaceful conclusion. The paragraph in the 2014 Crimean crisis article adequately summarises the subject. Sarahj2107 (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral As the creator of this article, I feel that I should speak up. The reason why I created this article was to shorten the main article, 2014 Crimean crisis, which was getting up to almost 150,000 bytes at that point. A list of scores of countries with their little flags by side and respective statements... This is a common phenomenon with rapidly moving current event articles. I'm not particularly a fan "International Reactions" articles, but if this article is deleted, I will bet you that the country responses and the little flags will start re-appearing on the main article. --Tocino 12:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep *Sigh* Do we really have to go through this again? We have a whole category of these Category:International reactions. Browsing through the articles many were put up for AfD for the same reasons. The fact is that this has widespread coverage to pass notability, is encyclopedic, having world views in another article expands the reader's view of the conflict, has foreign perspective, and is of historical interest. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well I forgot to mention that the abundance of sources for the reactions is a function of how the news media works, and is not a reflection of how Wikipedia sees things. Of course there is a whole category created for international reactions, and these all seem to be a feature of Wikis where editors are hungry to contribute by copying stuff off the internet and dumping it here. But, as Wikipedia is not the news says:
  Wikipedia is also not written in news style... While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
  And plenty of other stuff exists on WP. You start reading through those and I bet you won't last more than 10 minutes before dying or falling asleep out of boredom from routine repetition from the rhetorical condemnations and condolences. Why don't you try Wikisource or Wikiquote or even Wikinews? That's what WP:NOT#NEWS suggests we do:
  While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.
  -- Ohc ^¡digame! 13:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Every article is usually different but not in this case (WP:PRECEDENT) the cases are all exactly alike and are nominated for deletion for the same reasons. This would also pass per WP:LISTPURP and per WP:EFFECT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Knowledgekid87 said.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of those issues with so many international reactions it makes sense to have a separate article.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No doubt this is notable and useful. The ongoing crisis has tons of international attention with countless responses from various countries and institutions. I agree that, because there are so many responses, a new article is useful. Scarlettail (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International reactions are notable, and the size of the original article is too large for merging.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ohc has nominated a related article, Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis, for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the 2014 Crimean crisis.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Well-sourced to reliable sources. The amount of sourced information is well beyond what could reasonably be merged. Moreover, while the nomination cites MOS:LINK, MOS:FLAG, these are as their names suggest style issues, not reasons for deletion. Claims that this is a quotefarm or soapboxing are unpersuasive. I invite anyone who think otherwise to explain which of the five issues listed in WP:SOAP are at all relevant to this article. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 20:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content is notable and well-sourced, consistent with precedents (Category:International reactions), and too large to remain in the 2014 Crimean crisis article. —Lowellian (reply) 21:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is not paper. No point in deleting it. Many such articles on different international politics topics. DDima 21:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content is too long to be merged elsewhere. given that many world leaders have made statements (And keep making statements) on the crisis, it merits a standalone article. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as notable, sourced, and not mergeable elsewhere. --Lockley (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Well sourced, notable and unable to be merged anywhere else without causing an excessive article length. There is really no way this nomination is going to end in a delete or merge, so lets just end the nomination early.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

J. Prabhakar Reddy[edit]

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

Non-notable, doesn't meet WP:BIO, article created by now-banned sockpuppet. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any prejudice toward a recreation by someone who is not a banned editor. As the topic of this article actually appears through works and coverage to meet WP:BIO, we can wait for someone not under a dark cloud to recreate the topic. IE: The editor is banned, not the topic. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:06, 6 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 Deleted due to inclement weather - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Modern Games as Violent as Retro Games?[edit]

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

An unencyclopedic (if mildly interesting) essay about video games. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 09:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as test page, essay for school assignment. JNW (talk) 09:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as self-essay, original research (and as the original PRODder). E Wing (talk) 09:35, 4 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 merge to rc. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Es (Unix shell)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Es shell

Articles for deletion/Es (Unix shell)

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

Disputed PROD. This article was deleted at AfD in January 2011 and has been recreated in substantially the same form, albeit with a few additional sources. Unfortunately, all but one of the sources added is either primary (e.g., a man page or article by the author of es), trivial or otherwise unsuitable. The one added source that might support notability is the Linux Journal article from 1995 but our notability guidelines require multiple sources, not just one. Msnicki (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to rc, which it's more or less a clone of. That Linux Journal article is a good RS for rc too. 65.60.134.180 (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree re rc merge. Similar syntax on the surface, but very different underlying language (similar to claiming Java is a clone of C++). I also find it frustating that related rc - admittedly a far more notable shell - has no references (and no-one trying to improve the situation), whereas much energy is being put into deleting the relatively well referenced es Wryun (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is always an option at AfD and it's one I always like if there's a good candidate page where the content would be appropriate. Msnicki (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (self-interested, as the person who provided the citations after the original deletion and who provides an unofficial github version of the source). Note that I'm not an experienced wikipedia editor, so I will appreciate explanations of things that are obvious. Wryun (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't the multiple Google scholar citations on the conference paper support notability? If those were separately referenced (rather than the more useful original), would that be preferable?
- Why don't FOLDOC or faqs.org count as notable external sources?
- The man page is part of Ubuntu, the largest (?) linux distribution. Isn't this coverage from a notable external source?
- In fairness, I think this was definitely notable back in 1995 and is much more debatable now (hence the difficulty of finding current sources on the web). How does wikipedia feel about things that were 'historically notable' like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryun (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The other frustrating thing is that some of the other more recent shells in the category (wish? sash?) would probably be even harder to find reliable sources for, but I value their inclusion (along with es). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wryun (talk • contribs) 21:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I was very grateful to learn about es-shell on Wikipedia. It might not be 'notable' from history but its market was small compared to nowadays where higher-order-functions (HOF) are becoming a mainstream features of many languages, and maybe interests in HOF shells will grow. I would consider it a loss it its WP page was to be deleted. Agumonkey (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC) (ps: Apologies in advance if I inserted myself into the debate the wrong way, I couldn't find any 'correct' way other than editing source by hand.[reply]

Google scholar search identifies 14 citations for that paper. That's not a lot. A significant paper will get 1000+ citations. A major paper (like the Diffie-Hellman paper) well get over 10K+. You could check to see if any of those 14 citations actually talk about the Es shell. But it's likely they mere cite the paper else they'd have turned up in other searches. Msnicki (talk) 02:47, 7 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) 00:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antonina Roxa[edit]

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

No notability demonstrated. A biographical encyclopedia of the Falkland Islands might well mention 50% of the islands inhabitants, past and present - but notability has still not been demonstrated. Brigade Piron (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [38] Notability is easily demonstrated. [39] Mentioned in Falkland Islands' Government history brief, noted in most history books eg [40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45] and notable enough for numerous references in the official records [46]. The biographical encyclopedia is used for details, the notability was established by the numerous references to the individual in reliable sources and this article has been requested by WP:FALKLAND for years. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I also find it rather sad that an article on one of the few notable women from this early period of Falkland's history is immediately nominated for deletion. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster, please do not reduce this to some sort of gender bashing. I simply ask again, based on the content of the article, the nearest Ms. Roxa came to individual notability was being in a group of 14 people (the smallest number identified) - no evidence that she was the most important of this group, or any of the others mentioned in the article. All I can deduce is that you consider her notable (a) for being a woman, and (b) for being a Falkland islander, yet no individual importance has been demonstrated. Do you consider that people from the Falkland Islands (and other micro-regions) are somehow more notable than inhabitants of larger countries who do not make it into "national" biographical dictionaries?

In effect, all I am asking is what her "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" is. Brigade Piron (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, what you chose to "deduce" of course bears no relation to my comment on notability. The reason for notability has been demonstrated by the references to her in Falkland Island's historical record and the fact she is one of the key figures in early Falklands history. Notability has been demonstrated, your subjective judgement of the relevance of key figures who helped build a frontier settlement is a frankly irrelevant. People become notable because they are one of a small group of pioneers and they play a key role in the early developement; the settlement couldn't have survived without her skills as a Gaucho. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability. Mugginsx (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The woman appears to be an important early settler. Michael Glass (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The woman appears to be an important early settler. The tale of creating a herd of cattle is an individual achievement although +1 as she was accepted as a gaucho. Victuallers (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Wee Curry Monster. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. 16:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Intothat darkness
Keep — Roxa took part and contributed notably to the founding of the Falkland Islander community, and probably was the most remarkable of the early settlers. Besides the subject's notability, the article is very well written, researched and sourced, a valuable addition to the Falklands history articles. Apcbg (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. Topic meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC and I don't believe any of the exclusions at WP:PEOPLE apply. Antonina Roxa was an important early settler who comes up again and again in the record of the history of the islands. Kahastok talk 20:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The biography not only fulfills WP:BASIC, but also shows through reliable sources that Roxa is notable for multiple events: he was the first registered American indigenous woman who came to settle in the Falklands, he was on of the few who chose to remain in the Falklands after Lexington´s raid, and she again chose to stay after HMS Clio reassert British sovereignty. She also survived the so-called Gaucho massacre and -being myself an Argentine I can tell you that is very, very rare- she has the honour of being the only recorded female Gaucho as far as I know.--Darius (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Antonina Roxa was an iconic settler of the Islands. She is mentioned as a notable figure in many books about the Falkland Islands' history. Contemporary primary sources also singled her out (by name or not) because of the great help she was to the colony, as she could fulfill various important labors. --Langus (t) 21:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A good deal of the article is contextualisation, but there is enough on her to be worth keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:19, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phines West[edit]

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

A supposed hip hop producer. There are no reliable refs in the article. There are no reliable refs about him. Article states he produced Talk That Talk by Rihanna. But, reliable refs don't back it up. Same goes for Mercy and all the other songs. Article as been created multiple times under Phines West, Phines west ( PRODUCER ) and Phinés West. Once an article gets questioned, the creating author blanks the page. All deleted articles are different in various ways, such as who is known by and producing several different articles. Wikia has a version of one that was deleted. Bgwhite (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems to be a hoax. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article lacks significant coverage. versace1608 (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt - Absolutely no notability whatsoever. Does seem to be a hoax. Mabalu (talk) 11:03, 10 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 Weekly Shōnen Jump. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Epoch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable one-shot. Already mentioned in parent articles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weekly Shōnen Jump Redirected are cheap, if not then I would be in favor of a delete - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:15, 5 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 Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album). (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl (Katy Perry song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG for no significant coverage outside of album reviews.

Keep. Despite a lack of significant coverage, which I'm inclined to favor in song articles, and which is heavily recommended in WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS, the latter guideline does have some flexibility in allowing articles on non-notable songs. NSONGS notes that even if a song is not notable, an article is "appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". So, while my preference is to not have a standalone article when it consists entirely of trivial, non-independent coverage (i.e., sheet music, liner notes, a non-significant chart placement, and single-sentence mentions within the context of album reviews), current consensus supports a different outcome, which is to keep articles on songs that do not meet WP:GNG but satisfy the "reasonably detailed" sentence of WP:NSONGS. Gong show 18:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I'm surprised by you voting keep when you acknowledge it lacks significant coverage. Not sure where a consensus opposing WP:NSONGS and/or WP:GNG is held. This isn't exactly that detailed, either..... XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A reasonably detailed article" as defined by NSONGS is when it has grown beyond a stub, a bar which this article has surpassed. The clause does not explicitly require the material to have been obtained within significant/non-trivial/non-independent coverage. Gong show 18:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the part of "reasonably detailed". "Notability aside" doesn't mean that length covers up for lack of notability, it was saying that however notable something might be, the notable thing(s) would require enough in-depth coverage to make something more than a stub. Even if not explicitly in NSONGS, GNG requires more coverage, which this fails. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) Only one chart listing, just an average album song otherwise. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if my previous statements already counted as a vote, but..... Redirect to Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album) or Delete due to failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS. As mentioned, the "reasonably detailed" bit does NOT make up for lack of significant coverage. Seems like a case of WP:MASK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete A7,G11 by DGG (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle O'Reilly-Hyland GIVES[edit]

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

Not notable. More adverstising around Joelle Wyser-Pratte (aka O'Reilly-Hyland), Ounavarra Foundation and Paul O'Reilly-Hyland. Like the others it was created by a new SPA created to start this article. Contaains the same exagerated peackocking as the Wyser-Pratte article. "On the US Election Day 2012, O’Reilly-Hyland featured in the press discussing the breakdown of males and females in the United States Congress, where women had won a record number of seats." No she didn't, she wrote a blog. The exact same puffery from two different editors or sockpuppetry (Just like the creation of Joelle O'Reilly-Hyland)?
Joelle O'Reilly-Hyland GIVES lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Sourced to Organisation websites, pieces by cofounder Wyser-Pratte, gossip columns, primary pieces and PR. None of the sources are independent reliable sources that provide ant depth of coverage about Joelle O'Reilly-Hyland GIVES. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Sources are crap/non-existent. It doesn't explain it's significance and is promotional so I have tagged it as such. SmartSE (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G5, created by sockpuppet of blocked spammer User:Aviation geek. Ruby Murray 06:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adam K. Stern[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY A large number of references, but many do not mention Stern at all. Then when you eliminate databases and press releases, it looks like the most in-depth reference is the Genengnews.com reference, which has all of four sentences on the subject. Nat Gertler (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't appear to be enough here to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali88 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Also, in my capacity as an editor, after deletion I'll create a redirect to Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)#Cover versions $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alonzo Holt[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A internet search turns up zero coverage in reliable sources. Without significant independent coverage in reliable sources, the subject is not notable enough for their own article. He has one cover song that charted lowly, at all only really due to the popularity of the featured artist. A small mention in either the Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song) or James Arthur (singer) article is enough. Not to mention there is someone that keeps spamming the article with hoax content that has become quite annoying to revert, so no point in keeping the article if the subject is not even notable enough to begin with. STATic message me! 05:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject of this article doesn't appear to be notable. The sources cited do not contain significant coverage. versace1608 (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was notified as the "creator" of this article, but I suspect that I just moved this to article space at the request of a non-confirmed user, I know nothing about the guy, non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. To be notable for our purposes, he needs to have had a hit on any major national chart and Holt does that. Also "it keeps getting spammed" isn't a reason for deletion - protect the bloody thing! I'll ask for pending changes protection.--Laun chba ller 08:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: View the page history and ask yourself have I been not? I do not see you reverting them every time they pop up. Also just meeting a single point and none of the others of WP:MUSICBIO, does not indicate passing it. The main point of MUSICBIO is, "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." The subject clearly does not meet the WP:GNG. The UK chart position is not even backed by an official reliable source, so it should be subject to removal. @Robert McClenon: Yes but not meeting WP:GNG is. STATic message me! 18:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Launchballer comment. The vandalism is not a reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrecking Ball (Miley Cyrus song)#Cover versions, which already contains: "Canadian singer-songwriter Alonzo Holt released his own rendition of the track in October, which featured vocals from Arthur; it peaked at number 97 on the UK Singles Chart and number 71 on the Irish Singles Chart." As there is no other claim to notability, duplicating this info in a standalone Holt article seems rather unnecessary. Readers searching for this person are no doubt looking for info on his "Wrecking Ball" cover, so a redirect to that section seems appropriate until (if) he achieves fame in some other way. As for meeting #2 of WP:MUSIC, the guideline also states that "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", and given the tiny amount of info on this person, I feel a redirect is the better way to go for the aforementioned reasons. Gong show 19:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it help if I was to point out there was quite a bit more information about him even before IPs attacked it which STATicVapor removed - see this.--Laun chba ller 08:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes information all backed to Facebook or not sourced at all. 1) Facebook adds zero notability at all per WP:PRIMARY and any understanding of WP:N. 2) I am not convinced at all that is even the singers Facebook since that page is filled with the same hoax content. Not sure how someone with 34 likes on Facebook and 15 on Twitter even got a song to chart anyways, which further supports that it is not the same person. All in all, still fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIOSTATic message me! 08:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information found in this version would show sufficient notability (being signed to a couple of different record labels) if there were reliable sources supporting it, but all there is is a Facebook page. And that page seems to be about the hoax version - look at the birth place (Brooklyn, New York), which tallies with the IP vandalism. Except that here the Stratford, Ontario birthplace seems to be sourced to the same Facebook page. And the original version, which was probably created on request from a non-confirmed user as per Jimfbleak above, had him down as being born in Burbank, California. I'm starting to wonder if this isn't all a complete hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Allmusic bio is helpful, and with more like that (i.e., non-trivial, reliable and independent of the subject) I could support a standalone article. None of the sources used in earlier versions of the article appear useful in establishing notability - just Facebook, Twitter, last.fm, iTunes, Amazon, Instagram, and the like. Gong show 21:50, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comment above. If this is a real person with a real (low-) charting song, there has to be coverage in some reliable source or other, but that does not seem to be the case. Unless and until such coverage emerges, this article should go. --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No credible source supporting notability. I agree with User:Gongshow. PK T(alk) 01:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while he technically meets WP:MUSIC, that guideline also makes it clear that meeting that guideline in itself shouldn't be considered grounds for an automatic keep. In this case, Holt has had one very minor hit, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of substantial coverage of him in reliable sources. I don't think he meets WP:BIO or the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 16 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Runs Through[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, flagged for COI. Not seeing why it belongs on the 'pedia. Result of earlier AfD was Delete. Looks like it was recreated with no major changes. I'd delete it myself, but it looks like a few people contributed to it. Suggest salting since the band broke up. Also suggest looking at the connected articles for probable nn issues. - CorbieV^☊ 04:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no more notable than last time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it appears that most of this act's members went on to bigger and better things with other projects, I am unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate page for this band. Gong show 19:02, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. I suggest this article be SALTED....William 12:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PNOZ (safety relay)[edit]

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

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

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

Various non-notable products and trademarks of Pilz (company). No shred of third-party coverage; even the replies to forum questions on whether the CMSE degree is recognized internationally were written by Pilz. Huon (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Huon (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third-party sources added. Safety-Hero 16:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - the "third party" sources aren't third party at all. Primary sources, sources published by the company itself, press releases and primary sources like patent documents and trademark registrations - none of those are significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The company, Pilz, might be notable but individual products probably aren't. Strongly suggest the author familiarises himself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines before creating any more articles. Stalwart111 06:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I think the company is notable -- the deWP article seems to be well established, but the individual products are not individually notable on the available evidence . DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Barbados–Canada relations. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Barbados, Ottawa[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. embassies are not inherently notable. This article simply confirms its existence and names of commissioners. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most important Embassy of Barbados since Canada remains Barbados' most important trading partner. Since the global recession. I was waiting 'til after the elections hoping the DLP would be gone but I now remember I have to get back on top of this. CaribDigita (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Most important Embassy of Barbados since Canada remains Barbados' most important trading partner" need some sources to back notability of the actual embassy, not the bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just got out of the hospital last night after a week in E.R. I will be adding sources and bringing it up to par with the US embassy article and London ones which I also did. CaribDigita (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Barbados-Canada relations, while this may be the most important embassy, it can be summarised there, it is not sufficiently notable for its own standalone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worse than most of the other Embassy articles in Ottawa. i.e. Jamaica's isn't any longer. CaribDigita (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (though I wouldn't be opposed to deletion as an unlikely search term) - I don't think there's any doubt that Barbados–Canada relations is one of those unusual "x-y relations" about an actually notable relationship. But the information in the article just repeats content from the High Commission's website or covers the publication of a book by the High Commission (though you have to question how critical the relationship must be if the High Commissioner has time to publish a book while in office). While the relationship might be notable, the institution isn't, nor is the physical building itself. Stalwart111 07:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Or to the contrary. Barbados & Canada's ties are so important the High Commissioner made the time to publish. Not only that, but the Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper wrote the preface in the book.

Also 80% of the International business sector of Barbados belongs to Canadian companies. Business Monday: BIBA following recent measures in last Canadian budget with potential to impact B’dos (quote)“While we recognise that these new measures are not targeted specifically to Barbados, 80 percent of our international business comes out of Canada thus our jurisdiction will feel the impact of this more than others, therefore it is up to us to be more agile than any other time in the history of our international business sector. We have several pieces of corporate legislation in the pipeline that must be pushed through and put on the books that we can simply exploit those in other niche areas and markets for which Barbados is a perfect fit.”(end quote) As the role of the U.S. diminishes, things are shifting towards Canada in the region. Note the Prime Minister of Canada wrote that book's forward passage. [47] So I guess the Prime Minister of Canada isn't busy either? CaribDigita (talk) 06:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've actually made our point for us - those are reasons that Barbados–Canada relations is notable and should be kept. But those are not reasons why the building is notable. Important decisions are made and notable relationships are maintained in buildings across the world every day. That doesn't make the buildings notable. Add all of those well-sourced claims should be added to that article. You've got good information but it is being presented in the wrong place. Stalwart111 06:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is determined by coverage and references. This article actually SO FAR has more references and more coverage than most of the other diplomatic missions in Ottawa so no less notable than the other shorter diplomatic missions mentioned in Ottawa. CaribDigita (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notability is determined by the depth and quality of coverage, not just a sheer volume of passing mentions. Many of the references provided are passing mentions in directories that confirm when the building opened and where it is located. Others provide coverage of minor diplomatic events held in the building. Those wouldn't normally be considered "significant coverage" which is the standard by which WP:GNG is judged. Those sources that do provide significant coverage of anything relate more to the relationship between the two countries rather than the building itself. Again, you seem to be missing the point - there is a place for the information you have collected in the article about the relationship between the two countries. synthesising minor diplomatic mentions of the building together with significant coverage of the relationship and suggesting it makes the building notable is a bit silly. For the building (or the institution) to be notable we would need significant coverage of the building - the architecture, construction, awards, history, previous occupants and any role the building, in particular, played in significant events. We don't have anything close to that now. Stalwart111 22:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is article is about the Office of the High Commissioner. If this article was about the building it would be 55 Metcalfe Street. And would look more like Category:Diplomatic_residences_in_Ottawa which are purely building centric/ building based. CaribDigita (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, it's not. It's about both. If you say, "I'm going to the High Commission" you're not opening up some sort of Vulcan mind-meld with the High Commissioner himself - you're going to the building. Otherwise the article would be titled High Commissioner of Barbados in Ottawa or Office of the High Commissioner of Barbados to Ottawa. The term "High Commission" is generally considered to mean both the building and the institution as I noted above. What sources do you say confer notability on the institution in a manner that justifies a separate article? Stalwart111 05:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March for Life (Prague)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable event; checked sources on Czech version of article and they all seem to be unreliable and/or affiliated with the protest, meaning there's not enough reliable independent coverage for notability. The user who removed it has a grand total of two other mainspace edits and removed it because I am a "known pro-abortionist," which I'm sure we can all agree is totally policy-compliant and not a questionable situation at all. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - I was pretty sure this was going to be a keep after visiting the piece in the Chesky WP and seeing there were about 15 annual marches listed. Yes, the sourcing there is terrible, per nom. Then I took a look at the internets for "Pochod pro život v České republice," which is the title of the piece there and found fuck-all. I remain of the belief that an annual protest event with 15 or so happenings is going to be the subject of substantial coverage in multiple sources.... Hmmm, trying again for "Pochod pro život" + "Praha"...... Ah, that's better... Still not seeing any sources, however. Check the newspapers, so to speak. Carrite (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did this search and didn't come up with anything that was obviously a reliable secondary source. Event listings, promotional pages, and so on. Just because it happens every year doesn't make it notable if no one covers it. (I could have sworn there was an ATA for that, but the nearest I can find is THISNUMBERISHUGE.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the news sources covering Czech March of Life are religious (catholic) media, some of them (such as Radio Proglas or TV NOE) are notable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we accepted that niche sources who in many cases are affiliated with the event are reliable at all, the first one is certainly unusable as an event announcement (not news coverage). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. Here is an article in Hospodářské noviny which is not mere "event announcement". Jihoceskenovinky.cz (which is rather a regional but reliable and acceptable source) says that politicians such as Pavel Bělobrádek attended the march in 2013. Here is an article on the blog of the Czech Television, a mainstream Czech TV, written by Ferdinand Peroutka jr., nephew of the famous Czech journalist of the same name. Here is another article published by Týden, a notable and reliable Czech mainstream magazine. ČTK, national news agency in the Czech Republic regularly reports about the event [48], similarly as Czech Radio [49], [50]. I would say that the march is of sufficient public interest and I suggest to keep the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, most of these are unsuitable: they're press releases or otherwise obviously promotional, or they don't constitute the significant coverage that the notability guidelines require. I know I have higher standards for notability than some other users (ie. I don't think "it exists" is really our standard), so we'll just have to see if other people think a single proper source or two sources really support notability. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I listed here do not publish promotional press releases or articles on request. They are neutral and suggest that the subject (March for Life) is a topic of public discussion. They also say more than simple "it exists". I'll work on the article. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article with the sources available, I believe it is now neutral and informative. The participation of the Prague's archbishop and politicians (deputies and senators) across the parties + media coverage suggest it is notable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG per sources cited by Vejvančický above. For the record, I myself strongly support the other team in the abortion debate, which shouldn't have anything to do with anything. Carrite (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to Beau Coup without redirect. Anybody can then clean up the article.

Dennis Lewin[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Although article appears well sourced, only one local story from the Cleveland Plain Dealer could possibly be used to establish notability -- far short of "substantial" coverage. Subject is repeatedly mentioned only in passing in other sources, often in reference to short-lived, barely-if-at-all notable 1980s rock band "Beau Coup". Article was speedy-deleted in 2008 per WP:A7. Levdr1lp / talk 18:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lp / talk 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename article to Beau Coup without redirect, and remove excessive and poorly sourced detail on single member of band, who only asserts notability per WP:MUSICBIO by association with the band. They charted in the Billboard Hot 100, and appear to be notable enough for an article. Ruby Murray 19:51, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ruby Murray's proposal. Levdr1lp / talk 19:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although Beau Coup was a very renowned band of the 80's, it was seemingly short lived after Lewin left the band. Dennis Lewin is a more notable subject for Wikipedia for many reasons. First of all it was Dennis Lewin that wrote and produced all but 2 of the song's Beau Coup did. 3 of them hit the charts and 1 hit the top100. Most of the band members are at present doing nothing in the musical field. Lewin continues to produce and perform. Since 1998 he also is a very popular radio personality airing in 2 states and in Indonesia. Formerly in Houston and on the BBC. I think the originator of his page made too much reference to Beau Coup and not enough to his other accomplishments past and present possibly. I am trying to do what ever is possible to preserve the page and have it accepted in to Wikipedia. I would appreciate any help from y'all! Thank you! Mmcard59 (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Graffiti Kings[edit]

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

Nothing that separates this page as needed from the Darren Cullen page, which uses most of this material--making this article repetitious. At best the material should be merged into the Cullen article and this should become a redirect, unless enough sources can be found that show the company is independently notable from Cullen. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It does seem that more sources have been added since I nominated, this may have altered the eligibility status of the article. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The company employs 18 artists - Cullen is the face of the company, just like being the lead singer in a band. this page should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlFreshCo (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr^\ talk / 03:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks well written enough at it is. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's tough for non-mainstream things to get coverage and the nominating editor has, in fact, honestly acknowledged there are now more than he had access to when conducting initial searches. I would venture to suggest both the company and its founder are notable. Stalwart111 07:45, 4 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Emsisoft Anti-Malware[edit]

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

Apart from one negative review, I haven't been able to find any independent secondary sources to support the notability of this product. fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I believe this article can be significantly improved if it were edited and should not be deleted. I have spent some time researching the product and found the following sources:

1. http://www.av-comparatives.org/summary-report-december-2013/ (PDF)

AV-Comparatives tested 22 anti-virus products throughout 2013. 20/22 of these products have Wikipedia pages: AhnLab Inc, avast!, AVG (software), Avira, Bitdefender, BullGuard, EScan, ESET, Fortinet, F-Secure, G Data, Kaspersky Lab, Kingsoft, McAfee, Microsoft Security Essentials, Panda Security, Qihoo, Sophos, Tencent, and Trend Micro. Emsisoft Anti-Malware received 2nd place in AV-Comparative's 2013 Real World Protection category, outperforming all of these vendors, except for Kaspersky Lab.

2. http://www.av-comparatives.org/dynamic-tests/ (PDFS) See March-June 2013 and August-November 2013 PDFs for details on the tests that earned Emsisoft 2nd place in source 1 above.

3. http://www.mrg-effitas.com/mrg-effitas-project-35-mrg-effitas-time-to-detect-and-remediate-assessments-q2-2013/ (PDF)

Again, Emsisoft Anti-Malware is measured against a number of vendors, most of which have Wikipedia entries, and receives a 100% score, along with Avast, BitDefender, Kaspersky Lab, Trend Micro, Trusteer, and Webroot.

4. http://www.mrg-effitas.com/mrg-effitas-project-36-mrg-effitas-time-to-detect-assessments-q2-q3-2013/

100% again, with Avast, BitDefender, Kaspersky Lab, and Softsphere.

5. http://www.virusbtn.com/virusbulletin/archive/2013/06/vb201306-comparative (Can be viewed by making an account on website)

Emsisoft Anti-Malware scores 100% in Virus Bulletin's 2013 Comparative Review on Windows Server 2012 subtests and a Solid stability rating. Over 40 vendors submitted their product to this test. Only 31 vendors met the entry requirements. From that, 25/31 vendors received the VB 100% ranking. TrustPort, Tencent, Symantec, Sophos, SPAMfighter*, Quick Heal, Qihoo, Panda Security, Microsoft Servers, Kingsoft, G Data, F-Secure, Fortinet, ESTsoft, ESET, EScan, BullGuard, BitDefender, Avira, and Avast all received the same VB 100% ranking as Emsisoft and all have Wikipedia articles.

AVG (software), Check Point, Commtouch, Kaspersky Lab, and Norman Safeground did NOT receive the VB100 ranking, yet all have Wikipedia articles.

Note, SPAMFighter is also being considered for deletion but with a little research that page could also be improved.

5. http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comss.ru%2Fpage.php%3Fid%3D1554

Same story. Emsisoft performs as well or better than a number of vendors with Wikipedia pages.

6. Some press from WirtschaftsBlatt:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwirtschaftsblatt.at%2Fhome%2Fnachrichten%2Foesterreich%2Falc%2F1473209%2FEmsisoft-sagt-Viren-den-Kampf-an

7. Some press from Cyber Defense Magazine:

http://www.cyberdefensemagazine.com/emsisoft-receives-editors-choice-award-for-2013/#sthash.gh4ZAjYb.w1EVYV08.dpbs

8. Some press from PC Magazine:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412859,00.asp

Note, despite the title, Emsisoft receives praise where other vendors are receive criticism: "In fact, Imperva found that two free anti-virus solutions—Avast and Emsisoft—were on the short list of tested products that "provided protection" from emerging IT security threats."

9. An award for software excellence: http://www.euroconference.org/EpsilonHonored.htm

The above sources are just the good stuff. I'm sure there's plenty of negative commentary floating around for this page to be neutral. According to Emsisoft, their software is installed on 7 million computers (https://www.facebook.com/Emsisoft/info) and has 1% of the global anti-virus market share (emsisoft.com/en/company/about/). That seems significant enough to me, especially if it were to be backed by another independent source.

Another important consideration is that Emsisoft Anti-Malware is a software, whereas Emsisoft GmbH (non-existent Wiki) is a company. Many of the above listed vendors have Wiki entries for both their company and their software.

Of significance, is also Emsisoft's recent discovery of a new ransomware, which received coverage from the Haymarket Media Group: http://www.scmagazineuk.com/new-linkup-ransomware-steals-your-bitcoins/article/333213/ and The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/feb/10/how-ransomware-turns-your-computer-bitcoin-miner-linkup

For transparency's sake: Yes I am a freelance writer working on behalf Emsisoft. But I think my research is at least enough to keep this article from being deleted, if the content were added by another objective editor or writer who might offer a more balanced perspective.

Thanks! Estebanluego89 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, you should try reading WP:COI Flat Out let's discuss it 03:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 04:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appreciate Estebanluego89 being honest and revealing the paid WP:COI. Unfortunately, the sources listed aren't sufficiently in depth to demonstrate WP:N or WP:CORP. The links provided appear to be merely incidental coverage (e.g., the Guardian article isn't about the company or its software, its about Ransomware). mikeman67 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The PC Magazine article seemed much more than incidental. I'm not saying it's sufficient to meet notability, but it is an in-depth review, in a leading PC publication. Agyle (talk) 15:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see that the PC Magzine article mentions the company. It appears to mentioned among many other firms in a report the article is about, but that;s hardly significant coverage by the magazine. DGG ( talk ) 01:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intrastate U.S. Highways[edit]

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

Topic is not notable for its own article. By adding simple notes to the existing list, the information is still present in the encyclopedia. Unlike single-state primary Interstates, there is no "element of surprise" or any apparent contradiction of terms to have a US Highway only serve a single state. Imzadi 1979 → 03:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any federal highway that serves only one state in the Union certainly qualifies as a "surprise" by any definition. Greggens (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Technically, U.S. highways are not federal, but they are national.

Delete trivia. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—just to clarify, there are third-party reliable sources commenting on the concept of an "intrastate Interstate Highway"; the Orlando Sentinel published this article on that concept. We would need some sources of that sort to make a case that intrastate US Highways are notable. Imzadi 1979 → 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that AASHTO has a policy against creating new intrastate U.S. highways serves as proof that it is indeed a notable topic. Greggens (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial, could warrant a mention in the United States Numbered Highways article, but a list is overkill. I would also consider looking at whether or not we need the intrastate Interstate list too. That information can easily be merged into the Interstate Highway System article instead of being presented as a separate list. Dough 48 72 04:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~or merge~~ - The info is useful. One person's trivia is another's important information. Merging as suggested above might be the best solution. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @VMS Mosaic: what is now the "overview" paragraph was lifted from United States Numbered Highways, the lead article on the system, and the notes in List of United States Numbered Highways has all of the intrastate entries noted. That list article has the paragraph on the single-state US Highways as well. Imzadi 1979 → 06:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm I missing something in what you pointed me at? I see notes spread thru a long list, but I see nothing which easily shows me all the intrastate highways. Manually going thru a long list of notes to find them is unacceptable. If that is your definition of Merge, then I change my comment to Keep. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what sort of use would this information be? Not even the "roadfans" are voting to support this in a general-purpose encyclopedia. This also fails WP:GNG. --Rs chen 7754 07:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is not for us to decide what use Wikipedia is put to. This list passes WP:DISCRIMINATE. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        ...which is an essay. --Rs chen 7754 08:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        An essay which is kept in order to give insight into interpreting the relevant guidelines. Where do you disagree with the essay? VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        I can't tell, because you have not explained how it passes it. --Rs chen 7754 08:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining something which is prima facie. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict) If you meant WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the section of "WP:What Wikipedia is not", which is a policy section that says "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources". No independent sources have taken note of the fact that some US Highways fail to cross a state line along their routes, unlike the case with Interstate Highways (as demonstrated above). The only sources that can be pointed to about this concept come from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), which determines the numbering policies for the US Highway System. Lots of highways fail to cross a state line, and several do from otherwise national roadway systems like the National Highway System. In other words, based on the reliable sources, it's trivia. Imzadi 1979 → 09:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: There is a page about intrastate Interstate highways. Shouldn't there be one about intrastate U.S. highways, as well? This is an interesting concept that should be explored further. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should start a page about state capitals with no connection to the Interstate Highway System, then. --Rs chen 7754 10:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Is there an article about state capitals with no connection to the U.S. highway system? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, keeping this article sets a bad precedent by allowing indiscriminate lists that are not backed up by the WP:GNG. --Rs chen 7754 10:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, it "sets a bad precedent"? Also, what is an "indiscriminate list", as you put it? And how are lists like this not notable? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allen, we all know you haven't met a road-related article, template or category you didn't think should be kept from deletion. My last comments set out the policy reasons that this would be a bad precedent. Unlike the article on intrastate Interstates, for where there are quite a few independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the topic, there are none for "intrastate U.S. Highways". Our policy says that the data has to be put into context by those types of sources, and the only ones I can find that talk about "intrastate U.S. Highways" are roadgeek fansites or discussion boards, which are not reliable sources. Imzadi 1979 → 10:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, saying that because there is one for the Interstates that there should be one for the US Highways is a classic case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That essay says that sometimes it is helpful to consider other similar cases to decide whether or not to delete a pages. However, there is a key difference between these two cases: the other one has the requisite coverage in independent reliable sources, and this one does not. That difference breaks the equivalence between the two topics and negates the usefulness of the comparison. (Also, we don't need this article to have a comprehensive coverage of the topic, List of United States Numbered Highways already indicates which ones are "intrastate", including a few historical examples that were omitted from this new list. Imzadi 1979 → 10:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve, per Wikipedia's Five pillars, the encyclopedia also functions as a gazetteer. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but how is this notable? T C N7JM 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Eh...forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this info already here in a larger capacity in the main list of US highways? And it's really easy to find the intrastate list within that list too. You just sort the notes column alphabetically, scroll down to the I's and there you are. Absolutely no reason to keep this list, as this isn't a particularly notable topic either. T C N7JM 13:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep At first glance, the article appears as trivia or a curiosity, but perhaps there are uses. For example, I can imagine someone seeking this information to find US highways that perhaps they perceive as unnecessary, frivolous, or deserving designation as a state highway instead. In addition, as mentioned above, it is notable that such routes are no longer possible to create; the routes that remain intrastate have a unique aspect compared to other present or future routes. The article explains this notability fairly well. The notability, however, is not strong, and I concede that the information is available in other articles. I would accept deletion mostly because of a lack of sources citing the intrastates as notable. Scarlettail (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the existence of specific policies aimed at eliminating these roads sufficiently establish them as a meaningful topic within the broader subject of US highways. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere given the AASHTO policies to eliminate these. And get rid of those silly "staff" entries in the references. Interestingly, US 57 was created long after the policy was implemented; some time ago I made a list here of all that have existed since 1937. --NE2 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article isn't necessary. All the U.S. routes listed are in the list of U.S. routes. Thus, this article should be deleted. Philroc (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge and delete the redirect. If you add a column to List of United States Numbered Highways showing the number of states each route passes through, this page becomes redundant. –Fredddie ™ 06:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Its been pointed out several time that it is unusual for a US highway to be located entirely within a single state and that such US highways can no longer be created. There seems to be a very weak point for having such a list and the article does in fact demonstrate why it might be notable.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morriswa. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 17:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delte' per Imzaldi Secret ^account 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is an encyclopedic purpose for providing this information, it can be obtained from the long existing article with the list of U.S. Highways. Where I disagree with the nomination statement is List of intrastate Interstate Highways is an identical situation and should also be nominated for deletion. I don't understand those that are voting to delete this page but defending the existence of the other. The fact that the occasional newspaper has reported on the ironic concept does not necessarily make it any less trivial. Major news media often sprinkles oddities, trivial details and other light hearted stories in news coverage, and the linked Orlando Sentinel is clearly written in tongue-in-cheek oddity reporting style. Dave (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have List of United States Numbered Highways and thus don't need a duplicate. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:56, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources justify the separate article, the existence of articles on all US national routes does not obviate the need for this article, and in any event, we aren't really talking about a "deletion" issue, just an organization of content issue.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Above editors have already demonstrated that the topic meets WP:GNG, and it is of encyclopedic interest as a policy issue, especially regarding the distribution of federal highway funds in the United States. Chubbles (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Chubbles: federal highway funds are not impacted by that policy, period. These highways are state highways that carry a number assigned through the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, not the federal government. These highways would be just as eligible for federal funding if they carried other numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 04:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And that, indeed, is an argument that might be made regarding federal highway funding policies! You are making my case for me. Chubbles (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - When your argument is based on WP:OR, yes. --Rs chen 7754 04:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - How federal highway funds are distributed is not a matter of original research; that said, Wikipedia's road articles tend to focus much more on history than fiscal matters, and I encourage editors who are experts in the area to expand our sourcing and coverage of such matters, including in this article. Chubbles (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        @Chubbles: no, I did not make your case for you. To wit: if US 46, which is a US Highway only within the state of New Jersey, were to be "downgraded" from US Highway status to state route status, the level of possible funding from the federal government would not change. The more important metric for determining federal funding is not US Highway status, but National Highway System status, and those are different items. U.S. Route 41 in Michigan is only on the NHS from the state line north to Houghton; from Houghton north, the highway is not on the NHS. M-28, a state highway, is on the NHS in its entirety. The only place where NHS status overlaps with a highway designation is with the Interstates; all Interstates are automatically included on the NHS as a matter of definition. US Highway status simply has no bearing here. Imzadi 1979 → 18:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Excellent, excellent! The site very much lacks information about this very topic, especially in the most likely places where one might look for it, such as right here. It would be great if you could source this information and add it to the article under discussion! Chubbles (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Markov (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. A few matches in minor promotions. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - won a few titles of a promotion so minor it does not have an article. Also, Union Pro is a sub-promotion to a minor promotion in DDT. Actually, if he makes in big (top champion) in DDT he might be notable, but he hasn't done so yet. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:18, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable at all. There's hardly anything notable about his Russian wrestling league. Also, move Ivan Markov (weightlifter) to Ivan Markov, because his page will be the only one left. --GeicoHen (talk) 09:24, 7 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 Anoa'i family. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Anoa'i[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable wrestler. He is part of a wrestling family, but he only wrestled a few times in minor promotions HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is to redirect to Anoa'i family.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anoa'i family. Agree with 70. Reno does not seem to meet WP:GNG. There are no sources for his career. He's apparently won one championship in a minor promotion in his whole career - and that particular promotion's article is facing an AfD as well. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 08:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anoa'i family per comments above. STATic message me! 08:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anoa'i family.LM2000 (talk) 20:10, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New Wrestling Entertainment[edit]

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

No notable minor promotion. Sources are dead and since 2009 doesn't held any event. Looks like NWE closed in 2013. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't seem to fulfill WP:GNG. Also ridiculously their champions haven't defended their belts since 2009. Mr Anderson is wrestling for TNA since 2010 and Guerrera is somewhere in Mexico (this being an Italian promotion) I believe. Maybe they too forgot that they were champions. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 23:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. STATic message me! 00:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 20:09, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nets–76ers rivalry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple independent sources. I am not counting questionably reliable content farm coverage at SB Nation and Bleacher Report. The few reliable sources I did found are WP:ROUTINE coverage that reads more like hype. A 1999 New York Times article talks up the "off-the-court fireworks of the past month", but concedes the Nets have never had a "truly bitter rival". By 2003, The Philadelphia Inquirer still hasn't consider it an established rivalry, writing that it "could form the NBA's newest hot rivalry." For those who want to count SB Nation (and I wouldn't), it even wrote in 2011 that the "Nets and 76ers have never had much of a rivalry." While removing the WP:OR from the current article is surmountable, the lack of notability is not.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only rivalry going on between these two seems to solely interdivisional; with the move to Brooklyn, there's no 'South Jersey/North Jersey' connection at all, and a couple of players going to the teams doesn't create a rivalry. Nate • (chatter) 05:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two teams play and are geographically close but there is no proof of a rivalry....William 10:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above - I'm unable to find sufficient coverage in reliable sources for this to meet WP:GNG, WP:NRIVALRY. Gong show 19:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sixers fan here. There might have been a little bit of a rivalry at the turn of the century, but that's about it. The other three Sixers rivalries that have their own page all have much greater histories than Sixers-Nets. I actually think SB Nation is (or at least has become) a decent source, but Bleacher Report usually isn't. Orser67 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This "rivalry" is neither notable nor significant. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 8 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) 05:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis de Souza[edit]

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

Subject does not satisfy notability guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism/Notability guide. Longevity is not a criterion for notability. WWGB (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Roman Catholic priest who lived to age 90. No plausible claim of notability. A diocesan publication is not an independent source. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from living to an old age, I can't see what the notability might be. Perhaps the author can work on demonstrating what else he has done? Bali88 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually WWGB (talk · contribs) - I think longevity is a criterion for notability, but 90 years isn't a low enough percentile in the life span frequency chart for it to be notable, and that he would have had to have been at least a supercentenarian (110+ years) for this to be argued. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no articles on Questia, Google News, or HighBeam. Jeremy112233 (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PJ Bond[edit]

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

Withdrawn by nominator - based on sources found (below) I am happy to withdraw my nomination. Flat Out let's discuss it 22:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to find substantial secondary, reliable sources to support the subject's notability. Fails WP:BLPNOTE. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC) Flat Out let's discuss it 01:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a little light on information (to say the least!) but there does appear to be coverage in multiple reliable sources [51][52][53][54][55], enough to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I'll add these to the article in the next day or so. Gong show 20:27, 4 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 Cloud Nine. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud-nine[edit]

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

Probably not notable, but the awards could point the notability if referenced. reddogsix (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cloud Nine. The company isn't notable, and it's a mystery to me why the nominator is edit warring if he agrees enough to PROD it - but it happens that this is a likely search term for readers who are looking for one of the items listed on Cloud Nine. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A children's company in a school. Not a worthwhile search term. Szzuk (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cloud Nine. buff bills 7701 19:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Simshauser[edit]

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

Article is not supported by multiple published, reliable, secondary sources. Fails WP:BLPNOTE and does not meet criteria for WP:NACADEMICS. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too early, his GS Profile is promising, but not enough to clear WP:ACADEMIC. --Randykitty (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short CV with no assertion of notability other than his work is widely cited. This would pass, if true, but WoS shows only 30 cummulative citations on 9 papers (h-index 4). So, I agree that this one is WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The only assertion of significance in the article is that his publications are well cited, but his Google scholar profile shows citation numbers that do not bear this out (at least by the usual standards of academic deletion discussions here). I don't see any other evidence of passing one of the WP:PROF criteria in his academic bio nor of passing WP:GNG for his non-academic work. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Short of academic impact and not otherwise noteworthy.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:21, 9 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) Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabus (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two legitimate dab entries; the album can be hatnoted. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would give undue prominence to the unimportant album, as a hatnote at the Syllabus main article, whereas a hatnote to the disambiguation page is just right. And the other 2 items seems just as likely to be referred to, as the album. wp:TWODABS is a guideline only, and even it merely suggests that a disambiguation page might not be necessary, if there are only two items in a dab page. A disambiguation page is allowed, is not prohibited. And here, like in many situations, a dab page is simply better to have. No harm, some benefit: Keep. --do ncr am 02:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further, Google search on "syllabus" brings me immediately to definition:

"an outline of the subjects in a course of study or teaching."
"(in the Roman Catholic Church) a summary of points decided by papal decree regarding heretical doctrines or practices."

which suggests the Roman Catholic definition is common (and I tend to think it is far more important than one album). Not sure what dictionary that it, the box just comes up, is it a dictionary within Google, now? --do ncr am 02:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dab pages are navigational tools. There is no article for the Roman Catholic syllabus. The two examples don't belong on the page per WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PTM makes it quite clear that if a partial title is commonly used in place of the full title, then it is an legitimate dab entry. Of the two Roman Catholic entries, the Syllabus of Errors is frequently referred to as just as the "Syllabus" - indeed, "Syllabus" is the title of the article entry for it in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Even without investigating the other Roman Catholic example, that gives us at least three legitimate dab entries, definitely enough for a dab page. PWilkinson (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think that there are enough useful entries on this page that a disambig page is useful to our readers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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