Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 7 December	9 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music group naming

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

I believe the whole article is original research. Since its creation, it has never been supported by any references.

I found the article very interesting. It got me thinking about music group naming, and the phenomenon as a subject in itself. I think there are many interesting ideas there.

I just don't think it belongs in an encyclopedia. There's no transparent source beyond the editor that created the article.

Willondon (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article, and though there have been other contributions I think the basic scope of its discussion and structure are still what I had written. I guess I can't say that I *definitively* believe it is not OR, since I am not deeply familiar with the nuances of the policy (though I have read it, I don't have a lot of experience reading discussions about it and seeing how it gets applied in cases which are not clear cut).

My sense is that maybe the article skirts around the edges of the policy and this has drawn some (obviously well intentioned) criticism and concern. What I had in mind was an article that essentially was "compiling facts and information" (term from WP:NOTOR; I do realize that essay is not a policy, but I think it has merit in explaining what I was thinking). I can see that Wikipedia:NOR does prohibit, "any analysis or synthesis" but that is only of "material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources". However the music group naming article isn't trying to advance a "position", at least not that I can see nor intended. The word position seems to imply a subjective interpretation. But I do not think that identifying similarities among music group names was a "position" since it seems more like a direct observation - i.e. not subjective at all. It seems to me that how we interpret this point may be the crux of the issue.

With regards to sources - what I understood from Wikipedia:Verifiability was that statements in articles need to be attributable, but do not necessarily require actual attribution. So for instance, the article uses the name "The Beatles" at one point. It did not seem necessary to cite a source to show that such a band existed, since it is common knowledge. (Though I guess with some of the less well-known bands mentioned that could certainly be a problem.) However I don't think the lack of attribution even if it is required actually means the article constitutes original research, the issue at hand. It just means citations need to be added to substantiate the example names put forth.

So as regards deletion, I guess ideally I'd like to hear some specific discussion about how it violates OR in ways that can't be fixed. And if there are lots of problems like that - well then so be it! At least I/we learn something. But if not, or if they can be fixed, then maybe we can save the article.

dhollm (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My argument that the article is original research boils down to "there are no sources". I'm a novice in contributing to Wikipedia's administrative efforts, so I've only finished a first-time read of help on deleting an article, and related issues. To address your thoughts point-by-point:

I don't see the article as a compilation of facts and information as described in WP:NOTOR, which explains that "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. For example, multiple secondary sources are usually required before the notability of a subject is established. Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article." The rationale for deletion is that there are no sources.

I agree that no position is advanced, reading WP:NOR, which says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." But again, there are no sources to inappropriately synthesize.

The article draws on easily verified facts, like the existence of a band named "The Beatles". But it also provides a second layer of analysis without support. It's there that I think references are needed. As Arms Jones put it "a reference explaining the reason why the band choose its name, including why it has a definite form."

My argument that the article is original research boils down to "there are no sources". So is it WP:OR in a way that's unfixable?

Providing sources would be a way to fix the article. I'm not optimistic about that, so someone else will have to take the lead there. I also found Wikipedia:Article Incubator in my skimming. It's an interesting article, but if it's to survive, I think it will have to be somewhere outside Wikipedia. Willondon (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find this text interesting, but it is not backed with sources. You don't have to have a reference to the fact that there was a band named the Beatles, since that acctually is common knowledge, but in an article with this scope you do have to have a reference explaining the reason why the band choose its name, including why it has a definite form. Arms Jones (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem with this article is not any doubt that the artists mentioned actually exist; they do exist or have existed. The problem with this article is that it contains various statements about band naming practices, some of which are questionable in terms of their accuracy, and not one of which is sourced. It appears to be completely original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2013 (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) 22:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest airports in Luxembourg

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

I'm not sure how to summarise the rationale for deletion here (that is, what policies to point to). I'd summarise just by saying that the goal of the list is to list the busiest airports in Luxembourg.

Luxembourg currently has four airports. Of those, only one has an article. Of the remaining three, one is for gliders, another for ultralights, and the third has a soft runway - IOW, there's never going to be any substantive competition, nor are there enough of the things to justify a stand-alone list.

It seems...unnecessary to have a graded list of busiest airports for a country that only has one international airport, particularly when that country is smaller than Northern Cyprus. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis that this isn't a list. There's only one busiest airport in Luxembourg, and it's the same one each year. Pburka (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indeed, it's not a list because there is only one item; all information is in fact about Luxembourg Findel Airport and should be covered there. This article makes as much sense as List of catholic U.S. Presidents.--FoxyOrange (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a list with essentially, one entry. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so many airports! :) Delete per those before me. SarahStierch (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7, no claim of notability. Author even admits he don't meet notability standards, maybe later. Secret ^account 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael John Lewis

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

Autobiography about a local author, whose first book hasn't even been published, who doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Deprodded with the fantastic explanation of "Michael John Lewis". Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 23:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 23:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, couldn't find any results for this Michael John Lewis as opposed to other people who have the same name (it is a relatively common name, after all). Also, is an autobiography (User:Michael John Lewis looks exactly the same as this page does). Jinkinson talk to me 23:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't believe it when I saw that you nominated this for deletion. I am a hard-working author with two beautiful daughters and an incredibly amazing son. The widely read newspaper The Chronicle Herald did a feature on me. That should mean I am worthy of an article. Just because I don't meet your GNG or NAUTHOR doesn't mean I don't have a page. Isn't it the truth that if a person is remarkable, they are worthy of an article? I have received praise from many of my colleagues. Michael John Lewis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael John Lewis (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Random

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

Radio DJ without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. None of the sourcing in the article is useful for notability, and I can find none when doing my own searches. Whpq (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - Appears to fail our general notability guidelines at this time. Perhaps in the future. SarahStierch (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Vision Of Paolo Soleri: Prophet In The Desert

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

Non-notable film lacking trivial coverage. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The film the vision of paolo soleri: prophet in the desert is considered significant in architectural circles. I don't see how write ups on different architectural websites, news papers in the United States and Europe, Dwell, The Los Angeles Times, etc are considered trivial. Also the Hallands Nyheter is considered a rather larger News Paper in Sweden. The Italian Consulate General of Los Angeles also has write up on the film (not used in cites). I wasn't aware the wikipedia needed an entire run down of all press something had received in order to stop a page from deletion. The film is also of historical significance as it chronicles the life of world famous architect Paolo Soleri, and Soleri approved of the film. The film features never before seen archival documents, such a letters between Soleri and Frank Lloyd Wright, as well as correcting certain falsehoods about Soleri's early life that were previously unknown to anyone even Soleri's own family. LoveSammi

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowy keep even when the nominator tagged it the article had multiple WP:RS. The rationale "Non-notable film lacking trivial coverage" is blatantly incorrect: the bar is for non-trivial coverage but at the time he tagged it, such a rationale wasn't even met by that low benchmark. This one is a puzzle, to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A lot of those sources are trivial in nature, only mentioning the documentary in brief. I do think that there will be enough to keep the article, but this needs a pretty hard cleaning because some of the links given didn't back up the claims in the article (not that I doubt the truthfulness) and most are trivial. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The coverage here is incredibly light and I wish that there was a review out there that would help give this a little more oomph. (I have a feeling that someone involved with the film might view this, so I'd like to point them towards review sites such as Film Threat, which would likely gush over a film like this if they got the chance to see a copy.) I'm not sure that the film festivals it has shown at are so incredibly big that they would really count towards notability, but we do have four sources that discuss the film- one of which is in another language. It's just enough to where I can muster a weak keep for this. If it's not kept then I'd recommend that it be incubated or userfied. I'd be willing to userfy it myself if it comes to that. If we had just one review, I'd feel a lot more solid about this keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:58, 13 December 2013 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess.com

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

This is not a notable site. On occasion this is recreated, but since the last AfD there is nothing to add in terms of reliable sources. The reliability of TechCrunch is a matter of serious doubt, and besides that there's nothing except a mention or two in a local newspaper and on CNET. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Epicgenius (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe there is a general concensus among WP:CHESS members that this site is notable in that it is one of the most popular chess sites on the internet. Of course one may question Alexa's methodology but there is no real question that this is a very popular website. Wikipedia is often the first port of call for people wanting more information about a website, and they could reasonably expect to find an article about Chess.com. This Norwegian paper notes that Magnus Carlsen has an account there and describes it as "the third major site for chess lovers" after Internet Chess Club and Playchess.com.
Chess in general gets little coverage in mainstream media; it would be similarly difficult to find mainstream media sources for playchess.com or chesscube.com.
The user who lobbied to have this article nominated for deletion is a banned user who has a particular grudge against chess.com. He also lobbied at least two other editors (admins?) to do the same, knowing that if he nominated the article himself, his nomination would be rejected under WP:G5. This is a clear case of canvassing and Admin shopping. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of chess not getting covered is just plain bull. There are millions books about chess, hundreds printed every year. That they choose not to cover this website in detail says something about the notability of the website.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that TheRedPenOfDoom (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

A reach. Millions? What are you basing this on? And what does that have to do with the above statement that "chess in general gets little coverage in mainstream media"? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The popularity of the site is not a good argument, either. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another invalid argument -- that a banned user w/ a grudge against Chess.com has lobbied. (Is the suggestion that the banned user has used hypnosis?! Or turned others into radio-controlled zombies?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His lobbying is not the issue. Nor is Wiki Brah himself an argument for Keep. The point is justifying the article's recreation and new debate over it -- as the last one was tainted by socks. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one asserted or implied Wiki Brah might be an argument for Keep. Re tainting, curious: How do you suppose there can *ever* be an AfD discussion re Chess.com which doesn't draw (new) sock(s)? (Do you plan to eliminate that sort of thing? How?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient (too weak, no in-depth coverage) RSs. (A troll taught me something re WP:GNG -- imagine that!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak keep~~ - Yes, sockpuppetry, otherstuffexists and bears, oh my! Discospinster, RedPen and the doctor are, IMO, beyond reproach. With one of them starting the AfD and a second (RedPen) apparently leaning toward delete, I'd say we're more than halfway to a deletion. I'm also not at all impressed with Alexa and other arguments that, gosh, it's so big it MUST be notable. Beyond all of that, the sourcing (now that I actually look at it) is really quite weak (even if we add in the Karasian bit, which we shouldn't). In fact, I'm really starting to wonder why I'm !voting "keep" at all. Part of me wants intellectual stuff like chess to get the same kind of attention as the latest tripe from whatever flash-in-the-pan is popular right now. That said, <sigh> Wikipedia is not my therapist. Delete. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But a real therapist might recommend Wikipedia as therapeutic. (But probably not.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question - for Drmies and TheRedPenOfDoom: What are your thoughts on the clear WP:ADMINSHOP and WP:CANVAS#Inappropriate notification here and its effect on consensus? This was not "hey can I have your opinion." It was a lengthy, targeted, campaign. We're starting with the discussion tilted, influencing the rest of the discussion as SummerPhD makes quite clear. Would it be fair game now to go post on all of the self-identified inclusionists' pages? (rhetorical question). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 05:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I am concerned, I wasn't asked as an admin since there is no administrative action I could take in relation to this article (unless, for instance, it was clearly a copy of a previously deleted article, but I didn't check for that, accepting its recreation on good faith). I don't know what Summer makes clear besides her argument, and I don't know if there was a campaign of any kind. I do know that a couple of Wiki brah socks were blocked after CU, and I blocked one of them myself. One more thing: if you go to my user page and check my user categories, you'll see that I'm a self-identifying inclusionist Wikipedian, besides other honorable things (such as a worshiper of the Mandarax). You (plural) really shouldn't overdo the canvassing and adminshopping bit: that I'm also an admin has no bearing on this nomination, as any participant and certainly any closing admin should know. Ihardlythinkso, I'm thinking you're probably a better armchair psychologist than me. Drmies (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: I do NOT feel the discussion began with a slant toward deletion based on admin involvement. If anything, I'd think it would have started with a slant toward keep based on the sock involvement. Personally, I'm a fan of reverting all edits by socks of banned editors (and was inclined to keep this despite the state of the article). Yes, the socks brought admins to an article they might not have otherwise seen. But to say that the admins came here with an inclination toward supporting a sock's position is an extraordinary claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair responses. I don't mean to sound cynical. To be clear, SummerPhD, what I was referring to as "With one of them starting the AfD and a second (RedPen) apparently leaning toward delete, I'd say we're more than halfway to a deletion". That's not to say anybody wouldn't have voted the same way otherwise or that anybody other than the sock acted in bad faith, but as you point out, when you get respected Wikipedians to weigh in early by canvassing them, you project something different from if you saw the article nominated by someone you didn't know, with no other opinions so far (cascading effects, social pressures, other group decision making stuff). So not a judgment of individuals, just of the integrity of the procedure. Regardless, it's not so egregious or out of the ordinary for me to belabor any further. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources aren't spectacular as is, but sufficient, I think. Here are a few various sources not presently included on the article that might help:
- USCF: Chess.com to Host 2013 US Chess League (re: United States Chess League)
- NY Post article about a lawsuit the site is in over cheating allegations
- USCF covers chess.com buying chessvibes
- not an ideal source, but a popular blog post by a former chess.com employee talking about the company structure
- one of a few articles about the founder, Erik Allebest, on chess and other business-related topics
- Chess.com accepts bitcoin - most of the activity on this topic is on Reddit and bitcoin message boards, though.
- a large number of notable chess players with WP pages write for or work for chess.com, and several outside sides point to their work (though typically minor mentions). No great sources to support notability in that regard, but for anybody on the fence at this point who might not see anything setting this site apart from any other non-notable chess site, here are a few, with primary links: Ben Finegold (wp), Bruce Pandolfini (wp), Jeremy Silman (wp), Gregory Serper (wp), Dan Heisman (wp), Jesse Kraai (wp), Eric Schiller (wp), Roman Dzindzichashvili (wp), Gregory Kaidanov (wp), Judit Polgar (wp), skipping the linking...they're easy to find, Melikset Khachiyan, Aleksandr Lenderman, Timur Gareev, Sam Shankland... --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: This article certainly has enough reliable sources (I just added a source to the New York Times in case there was any doubt that the other sources weren't enough) and chess.com is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, chess sites on the internet and is definitely notable. However, Wiki Brah constantly does all he can to remove all traces of references to chess.com on wikipedia, which is the only reason this is even being debated at all. Q6637p (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that March 13, 2010 NY Times article that you think is decisive, was deemed mere passing mention in previous discussions. Specifically, here is *all* that article has to say about Chess.com:
Chess.com also offers free play and basic instruction for beginners; on Wednesday night, more than 3,000 people were logged on to the site.
Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The totality of the sources that Rhododendrites brought up is non-trivial, for instance the USCF source on their purchase of ChessVibes is quite substantial. Although this is not very notable, it should be enough to satisfy WP:GNG requirements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the threshold at WP:GNG states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources " (plural) - it does not say "has received trivial coverage in a lot of sources". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is not dependent on TechCrunch, but TechCrunch is a perfectly adequate source for the purposes for which it is used, i.e. establishing what kind of website chess.com is, when it was launched, and noting the takeover of chesspark. Just because the NY Times wrote a critical piece on TechCrunch doesn't mean there's any reason to doubt its reliability on these details. The fact that TechCrunch covered the launch of chess.com also lends weight to the claim of notability. Note also that at least two business oriented books have references to Erik Allebest and chess.com: https://www.google.com/search?q="Erik Allebest" "chess.com"&btnG=Search Books&tbm=bks&tbo=1. I don't have access to these but they are potential print sources. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator was canvassed and one of the only other two delete voters was. And some of the sources have sufficient reliability and coverage. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up.}_{See where I screwed up.} 11:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources seem borderline for general notability but regardless being the most popular chess site means the absence of a Wikipedia article is a downer to Wikipedia itself. It can't be the prevailing view to on one hand, to stress coverage of Wikipedia per the FA's on the main page, and at the other hand have an absence of this article. There are a number of commentaries that, to my mind, rightly raise an eyebrow at Wikipedia's previous absence of this article, the forum at chess.com itself but also an alternative encyclopedia. I can just see a journalist reporting, "Wikipedia's says they have broad coverage but in practice they don't even have an article on chess.com the world most popular chess site with over 8 million members, a site that is more active then Wikipedia itself." So to that end I say even if ignore rules has to be applied, Keep it. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I checked the reliable source noticeboard for TechCrunch as this was specifically mentioned by the nominator. The topic of whether TechCrunch is a reliable source occurs four times in the archive, and in each case the use of TechCrunch as a reliable source was the prevailing view. If someone doesn't believe TechCrunch is a reliable source for this article then raising the matter on the RS noticeboard would seem to be an appropriate first step. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not sure that's an accurate summary, there seem to be more than four discussions in RSN archives, here is a page containing a summary of some put together by Thibbs in April 2012 where he concluded "It looks like there is a real split of opinion here" re TechCrunch as reliable source or not. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources supporting it for being notable (but just barely). Epicgenius (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Not the least notable item on the list of Internet chess servers. Cobblet (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)~~ Looks notable enough based on the list of sources Rhododendrites has dug up. Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone might take that comment as your rationale! (Of course it would be an invalid keep argument for AfDs. So what is your real keep rationale then?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everything that has been said already; in particular, Rhododendrite's list of sources. My point (which I thought was self-evident) is that one is not likely to find a similar amount of notable information for several of the other servers that we currently have articles for. I don't see why we should be holding chess.com to a higher standard than the rest. Cobblet (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that Cobblet's argument is a variation on "other stuff exists", but does it not strike anyone else as extremely suspicious that this site has its wikipedia article constantly targeted while nobody lifts a finger against the articles for chesscube, schemingmind etc? And that it's always (no exaggeration) the banned user Wiki brah who's ultimately behind it? It actually impacts on wikipedia's credibility if we cover almost every commercial chess server except chess.com. I'd go so far as to say that it violates WP:NPOV. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pointless arguing

Understood it the first time. But what other entries have or don't have elsewhere is irrelevant. Do I have to actually point out? ... This AfD is about Chess.com and its notability. Other topics that do or don't exist elsewhere or together in lists are irrelevant to said discussion. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the nominator specifically want to delete the article on chess.com when we have articles on less notable chess servers not currently on AfD? That's all I'm really asking. The consensus to keep the page is fairly clear at this point, and I don't have anything to add in support of that. I'm only pointing out that there are probably other pages for which an AfD would be more likely to succeed. Sorry if you think that's off-topic; I'm sorry to have wasted your time. I didn't think anyone was going to be as interested in my comments as you are now. Cobblet (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop mischaracterizing this thread. Was interested in one thing: your keep rationale (which wasn't originally provided). Please stop clarifying an AfD-irrelevant point - I understood it the first time (and the second time, and the third time). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I've mischaracterized anything. And you are under no obligation to read anything I write. Cobblet (talk) 07:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think anyone was going to be as interested in my comments as you are now. Was never interested in your comments - only ever in your keep rationale, originally absent. (Clear how you mischaracterized now?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were interested in hearing me contribute further to the discussion. That is what I meant by "interested in my comments". The provocative tone of your rhetorical questions invites a response, so I have done so. If you want me to stop, either stop replying to me or change your tone. Cobblet (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go read again what I asked. I specifically & only asked about your keep rationale. Now you like to stuff words in my mouth You were interested in hearing me contribute further and broaden what I asked to justify repeating irrelevant comments I understood the first time but wasn't interested in them, and certainly not in your repetition and expansion of them, which I made clear but there was no stopping you no matter what I wrote. You are coming from a position after that to reprimand me re my "tone"!?!? Go figure. (You want a positive suggestion, Cobblet?? -- You're good with words when you want to be. Practice that more often when you read words from me from now on, rather than using them as a manipulative springboard for your forceful soapboxing, how about it!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your distinction between "asking about my keep rationale" and "interested in hearing me contribute further", because to me it's obvious that the former is an example of the latter. I also don't understand how you interpreted my later remarks as a reprimand and find it unfortunate that you did so, for I have expressed neither criticism nor disapproval of what anything you've written. I only wish to make it clear that how you express yourself determines whether I care to respond to you. For instance, it is never true that "there is no stopping me no matter what you write". You can write nothing. Cobblet (talk) 11:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, if I ask a waitress for a cheeseburger and she brings chicken noodle soup instead, it doesn't justify doing that because "Hey, you asked for food, soup is an example of food, so I don't understand the distinction between what you asked and what I served." You don't have a right to manipulatively alter my Q for your own purpose of expanding irrelevant soapboxing comments, and even after my efforts to stop you from doing, further falsely attribute responsiblity to me for it (I didn't think anyone was going to be as interested in my comments as you are now.). I told you several times I wasn't interested as they were irrelevant to the AfD. Then after twisting my words continuously and my objecting to that you turn around and reprimand me for my "tone" (The provacative tone of your rhetorical questions). Give it a rest, Cobblet. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originally my comments were intended as a rationale, for what I really meant to say was: "I believe chess.com is notable enough for a stand-alone article; in fact, I believe it's more notable than other chess servers we have articles for. Surely it cannot be "not notable" and yet simultaneously be more notable than something else." It was you who twisted my words to make them sound irrelevant, but I let it slide because I assumed good faith on your part. If you're going to compare my good-faith responses to you to someone messing up your order in a restaurant, I have nothing more to say to you—nobody on Wikipedia is at your beck and call. It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion with you anyway when you choose to assume bad faith on my end when interpreting anything I say. I pity the sort of person who treats any comment regarding their conduct as a reprimand or criticism; or lambasts others for mischaracterizing them while they remain oblivious to when they do it to others. Cobblet (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're full of BS, Cobblet ... Your orig !vote did not express your keep rationale, or you wouldn't have provided your keep rationale in the first sentence in response to my asking what it was. The fact that you didn't communicate what you now say you wanted to communicate (what I really meant to say was) is not by any fault of mine, so you have no basis whatever to accuse that I twisted [your] words. (You are so full of BS it's amazing -- What manipulation!) The fact that you misinterpret the restaurant analogy into an objection that you think it meant that I think you should be at my service (nobody on Wikipedia is at your beck and call) shows real shallowness or even willful misinterpretation to make me look stupid -- that analogy was valid in showing the invalidity of your redesign of what I was asking, for your own purposes. And I don't "choose to assume bad faith" or willfully misinterpret what you say, Cobblet, I see what is in front of me and I've objected to your manipulation of it for your own ends. (Repeating and expanding AfD-irrelevant comments I didn't ask about, yet you tried to credit me for not understanding them and being interested in them -- all bogus assertions.) I don't need your "pity" for anything Cobblet, I've called you out fairly on your manipulative communication tactics and false blames, you have no right to make comments about my "conduct" or "tone" when you have been so manipulative and dodgy and take no responsibility for what you have written here, instead at every turn attempting to put blame and responsibility on me. Sorry but I see thru that kind of transparent crap, even if you have difficulty seeing your own conduct for what it is. I've accused you of mischaracterizing this thread with your unwarranted & baseless assertion that I was "interested" in your non-keep rationale comments, and now you take that and further twist into accusing me of "mischaracterizing others" when you don't define or limit that accusation, whereas mine was well-defined and well-limited. (In other words, you like to get into mud fights and baseless accusations. Sorry -- not for me. You need to go on the Jerry Springer Show for that kind of thing.) (BTW I simply objected to your mischaracterizing the thread, and explained how you did that when you denied it. That doesn't exactly equate to "lambasting" someone, yet you use that hyperbolic term to describe my objection. You're masterful at BS manipulation, Cobblet, but I'm not buying. [Equating my editsum to MaxBrowne as "personal attack" equivalent to his series of them and on his User page was another example of your wonderous ability to express off-base and ridiculous compares and distorted/false accusation. Sorry I have no respect for you -- you manipulate and play political games with false accuses and smear tactics -- I can't respect that sort of thing. Sorry, I'm not going to play your game and say I "pity" you and "can't have an intelligent conversation with you" as you have done to me, because I'm not into that kind of tacky, insulting/offensive false/manipulative out-of-bounds type of argument. You can seriously go blow.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sourcing supports a claim of notability, although it is close.Tazerdadog (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trolling by confirmed sock of banned user

Strong Keep. Thiss deleetion is nuttin more than an organized campain against one of the greatest and besst web sites in the world: CHESS DOt COM! This site has been profiled in depth in all major sports related and journals. The creater of Chess.com is a Geenious. It is almost like Chess.com's opponents are gettin PAID from an outside source...like an rival Chess server. Chess dotcom is a very significant organization. Would you deleet an article on New York City just because you didn't liek it? End of story. /thread. Hector the Toad (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)— Hector the Toad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hello? Obviousley that "Summer PHS" is part of the anti-CHESS DOT COMM CONSPIRACY. /thread. Hector the Toad (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone is trying to bludgeon this discussion with excessive commentary on other people's posts. MaxBrowne (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't nice to make nameless accusations. (I trust I don't need to explain *why* that isn't nice!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "nice" to bully the participants in an Afd discussion either. Over and out. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking you didn't get the meaning of my post ... I have no problem at all with you being not nice, if you want, to whomever was "bludgeoning" (assuming they were bludgeoning). It's the *unnamed* part of your accusation I was referring to. When you make an unnamed accusation, then assigning blame to whomever you intended becomes guesswork, so in effect, you're leaving open to others the cuprit may be anyone responding to thread posts, including those who are innocent of said blame/accuse. (And that's what is not nice.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out proper procedure and policy per prerequisites for potential pruning from the 'pedia is not to "bully" is it? Several users have presented the main issue here: This AFD is the result of a CONSPIRACY. This conspiracy has been in place for YEARS and involves scores of editors, administrators, and those that call the shots behind the scenes. I strongly suspect NSA and/or CIA involvement as well, per this: [1]. Hector the Toad (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as well as the Illuminati, the Masons, the International Fraternity of Ironworkers, aliens from the planet Qekxistams, and leading them all is my great great great grand mother who is the unliving queen of the vampires.

Delete. This site has never been a reputable source for chess players. MrsHudson (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- comment being "well regarded" is not a criteria for an article, (see Weekly World News or Adolf Hitler) . What matters is whether third parties have covered the subject in a significant manner. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at it currently, there's a wide range of reputable sources supporting the article. Gizza ^(t)(c) 10:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But do any of them provide "significant coverage" required for notability? (Which one[s]?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It is my view there is enough reliable sources to show notability to enough of an extent.Blethering Scot 21:32, 15 December 2013 (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) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrarchus

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

I can find no evidence that this guy ever existed. Google searches for <tetrarchus -wikipedia> produce a ton of hits for someone called "Solomon Tetrarchus" (apparently from Warhammer Fantasy), and a search for <tetrarchus -wikipedia -solomon> finds nothing relevant either. Go to JSTOR and run a simple search for <tetrarchus> and you get exactly one hit: this article, a German-language music journal in which "tetrarchus" appears in the middle of a list of music terms. How would a real emperor get absolutely no hits in JSTOR and absolutely nothing Wikipedia-related in the top several pages of a Google search? If any real emperor bore this name, he's been lost to history; there's no evidence that such a person ever ruled an empire. The only chance of this not being a hoax is if someone misunderstood a discussion of the Tetrarchy and thought that one of the tetrarchs was a man named "Tetrarch" or "Tetrarchus". In that case, it's probably a reference to someone like Constantius Chlorus, who was tetrarch of the region including Germany, Gaul, and Spain, but as a badly mistaken understanding of the source, it's not at all a reasonable search target and shouldn't be converted into a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems to be made up. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the overwhelming evidence from the Google searches seems to point to a speedy under WP:G3. It's clearly a hoax. RomeEonBmbo (Talk) 20:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced stub. I notified the editor in question about this deletion. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2013 (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 List of political parties in New Zealand#Unregistered parties. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Party (New Zealand)

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

Tiny non-notable party that received so few votes they could be friends and extended family. News coverage is basically about a single non-notable (and manufactured) incident that resulted in a $200 fine.

Related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ravlich, party founder. -- GreenC 20:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC) GreenC 20:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a notability criteria for political parties (I couldn't find it)? If there isn't then I would certainly have trouble applying the term notable to a party which has never had a candidate gain more votes in a NZ General Election than I did! DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, we have had that discussion before and it was Vardion who gave the answer, but I can't recall the details. I've prodded Vardion and he's been on wiki rather recently, but it states on the user page that "I am not paying particularly close attention to my account, and am unlikely to check it very regularly". I suggest we wait until Vardion has commented here (unless, of course, this takes forever). I shall endeavour to write the answer down on the NZ politics page. Schwede 66 19:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been long enough that I can't really remember what may have been said on the subject before, I'm afraid. Generally speaking, I think that registration of a party with the Electoral Commission is considered qualification enough for an article, and I seem to recall party pages being deleted if they fizzled out without ever contesting an election, but I'm not sure about the middle ground of parties which do stand candidates but can't/won't register. I'd like to keep some mention of them, since they'll show up in our election articles and people may well wonder who they are, but I'd have to say that if I were doing it today, I probably wouldn't have created this article - at least, not as a separate page. I've wondered sometimes whether we could/should have an article called something like "Unregistered political parties in New Zealand" where groups such as this could be dealt with en masse, without giving them separate articles unless there was some special notability to them. This would allow us to explain every party which pops up in the election results article without needing to give them separate attention. Such an article could also provide general data about unregistered parties as a whole (how many have contested each election, how many votes went to such parties in each election, the closest any of them have come to success, whether parties which have started out like this have ever managed to register, and suchlike). The individual parties may not be particularly notable in themselves, but I think the presence of unregistered parties in elections is something worth noting, and if we do so, attaching a minimal catalogue of these parties doesn't strike me as unreasonable. So while I can't really see this particular article as notable in itself, perhaps it could be worthwhile to merge the content into some sort of more general list? (Which would have to be created, of course...) -- Vardion (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Thanks, Vardion, for giving this some context. I concur that we should have an article Unregistered political parties in New Zealand and the content of this page should be merged with it. Schwede 66 00:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about the ideology or politics of the party, nothing about what they try to accomplish. It also seems to be an unregistered party with not affiliations to other organisations either. The article doesn't prove the notewothiness of the party, and therefor it should be deleted. Arms Jones (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of political parties in New Zealand#Unregistered parties, or any spin-off article using that as a base, as per comments from Vardion and Schwede66. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. The court case may be notable, as one of the very few prosecutions of this crime. but that would be a completely different article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per G12 Unambiguous copyright infringement.

Ernest Sultanov

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

direct copy paste job from http://www.mir-initiative.com/updates/rome/speakers/sultanov/ ₪Stormmeteo ^Message 20:18, 8 December 2013 (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 San Jose Unified School District. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Castillero Middle School (San Jose, California)

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

middle schools are almost always not notable, and blue ribbon and distinguished schools dont automatically qualify them for articles. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I remember rightly, the Blue Ribbon award is generally held to confer notability. Don't remember why, and I'm not confident in saying this either, but you might do well to look through some past AFDs. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to San Jose Unified School District. There have been over 5,000 Blue Ribbon school awards, and the program is based on a self-assessment. These routine awards don't make a middle school notable, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as nominator, i was expecting this to be redirected rather than deleted, but i didnt want to just do that, and there is no forum for turning pages into redirects. that, and the talk page would never see enough editors to come to a fair decision.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Cullen328 to San Jose Unified School District SarahStierch (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Adams

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

refs dont show notability. saatchi site is not exclusive, and the news article showcases her collection of design items, not her art. could not find other refs Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I noted this one as having some big notability concerns and hadn't gotten around to investigating it, but, my investigating is confirmed like Mercury's, and yes, Saatchi is not exclusive and I could get a profile there if I invested enough time in it (and uh, made art). SarahStierch (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2013 (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. Speedying - unreferenced and unremarkable BLP SarahStierch (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milaena Martinez

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

. Can you please add references for Milaena Martinez. I cannot find any description for her on any notable 3rd party neutral website. Itsalleasy (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails every criterion for WP:MUSICBIO, and highly promotional. The claim of a Steinway Society Award, for example, does not confer notability, as this award seems to have been given out by a small, local organization called the "Steinway Society of Western Pennsylvania". Jinkinson talk to me 23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beloved (trio)

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

Non-notable band: no third-party sources (all third-party sources mentioning a band called "Beloved" are referring to the one from North Carolina. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails music and general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ayler

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

Article is a bio page of "an American male model, actor and DJ". It was created by User:RitaHay on 22 July 2011 - that User has made no other edits. It was proposed for deletion the same day and for speedy the following day; this was declined on the basis that "article asserts significance" - though it's difficult to see where. In the last two and a half years, there has been no improvement in content that would assert any meaningful notability, though there have been the odd attempts to tidy up (including my own) and a number of vandalisms. Nothing in the article is sourced to reliable references, apart from the "appearance" in DNA magazine, which is actually a link to a website in which viewers are asked to vote on his body as "hot or not" - there does not seem to be an appearance in the pages of an actual paper magazine. The people he has worked with are none of them notable enough to have a Wikipedia page (and if they were, notability doesn't rub off like that). The only Google links I have found are to directory and vanity sites like Linkedin, Tumblr, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, various blogs and vote for body sites, but nothing to suggest that this person has any gebnuine notability. Emeraude (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He was featured in GQ Italia but all the sources I found were mere mentions and it doesn't seem he has a following yet or has made any major press or been in any major fashion shows or had any major gigs or coverage as a DJ. YET! Here's the sources I found: [2][3][4][5] SarahStierch (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vitoria order of battle

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

This article is too long and too useless. It is kind of a list, but the units in the list are not linked. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you accept this argument, then it applies also to practically every other article on an order of battle. Where links to units or persons (commanders) exist, they have been included. This AfD promulgation is frivolous, in my opinion. HLGallon (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be just a normal article on orders of battle. Unless you can find something wrong with this article (e.g. copyvios), this shouldn't be treated any differently from other articles on orders of battle. If you don't like having articles on the whole concept of orders of battle, you'd do better to propose a policy change at WP:Village Pump (proposals). Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The battle itself is undoubtedly notable. I agree with the rationale above - if we are to have orders of battle in Wikipedia, and currently we do, then this stands. As I am arguing elsewhere on an AFD, there has to be some consistency in our approach to these, otherwise WP coverage becomes even more arbitrary than it is now. If the argument is that in general orders of battle should not be included then that really ought to be argued as a general proposition, or on an example well known to editors especially in the US - something like First Battle of Bull Run - otherwise we get a situation where decisions are being made on people's prejudices and interest in particular battles. There were much bigger forces engaged here, and most of the units more notable even if not currently blue linked. --AJHingston (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. Being "too long", "too useless", being list-like, and lacking links are not valid reasons for deletion. For valid reasons for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. An order of battle is a perfectly valid type of article, and many have been developed to GA and higher status. This is a grossly ill-informed AfD nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a truly ridiculous nomination. Why on earth does it matter if the units are linked or not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 9 December 2013 (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. Actually closed by NE Ent here, reclosing to fix the template. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Cella

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

It appears Cella toured with Trans-Siberian Orchestra years ago, but there's not evidence of continued notability, and there's not really an article here. I followed link from Trans-Siberian Orchestra and was like "I clicked on this why?" NE Ent 18:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trans-Siberian Orchestra. It doesn't look like she meets notability guidelines in order to have her own article at this time. I think a redirect is fine. SarahStierch (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Talavera order of battle

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

This article is too long and too useless. It is kind of a list, but the units in the list are not linked. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't substantially different from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vitoria order of battle or other articles on orders of battles. See my comment on the Vitoria discussion page if you think there's something wrong with all of these articles. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. These were big and notable battles. --AJHingston (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A valid rationale for deletion is not present in the nomination. Being "too long", "too useless", being list-like, and lacking links are not valid reasons for deletion. For valid reasons for deletion, see WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Vitoria order of battle, which was also recently started by Vanjagenije. This ill-informed nomination boils down to a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What a truly ridiculous nomination. Why on earth does it matter if the units are linked or not? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2013 (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) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andriux's fun house

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

I don't see any coverage in reliable sources to establish that this topic meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for inclusion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not established. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just some guy's game server. I somehow doubt that The New York Times has written an article on this. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically a WP:PROMO piece for a non-notable game-centered community. I don't see any WP:GNG-worthy sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB, I was unable to find the New York Times mention either. SarahStierch (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with NinjaRobotPirate's assessment. Finnegas (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice towards a redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duel Disk

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

This does not establish notability independent of Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not independently notable. Could also be redirected somewhere. Maybe to the trading cards? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yu-Gi-Oh! Trading Card Game It is a part of the game. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An in-universe device. Would be better deleted than redirected. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Students' Front (DSF)

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

Unreferenced mess of an article about an organisation that contests student elections at a single university. No evidence of notability. Prod removed without explanation. Number 5 7 17:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the errors and discrepancies in the article. The article has been edited , and is still under construction . Citations and corroborating records will be further updated in the article. We welcome suggestions on the modifications necessary while forming this article. We look forward to your cooperation. Thank you . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rath1991 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unreferenced WP:POV WP:OR essay on a student organisation in a university. There are a few media mentions of the organisation, but I see these as passing mentions in the context of reporting on university affairs. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our facebook page . https://www.facebook.com/dsf1978 . As rightly pointed out very few media mentions . In spite of that here are some links that corroborate the existence of Democratic Students' Front in Jadavpur University , http://www.telegraphindia.com/1090328/jsp/calcutta/story_10733345.jsp http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110607/jsp/calcutta/story_14077751.jsp http://revolutionarypath.blogspot.in/2007/04/cpm-terror-after-loosing.html http://www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2007/May/nandigram_effact.html

Hope the links to be useful . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rath1991 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC) here are a few video links corroborating the existence of Democratic Students' Front in Jadavpur University. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qd7UUCqvsmE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dypqzxUBARo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIh4COYHveA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y_sZ_yD4EQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FttT1AJTH54 https://www.facebook.com/subham.juciv/media_set?set=a.562408997153690.100001537854703&type=3 https://www.facebook.com/subham.juciv/media_set?set=a.480634411997816.110045.100001537854703&type=3 thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rath1991 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I took a look at the citations provided right now. I think the student group will have to gain more coverage from secondary reliable sources in order to pass our general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSF - this was perhaps created much earlier , although we do have hardly any idea about the creator. Intensive internet work on Democratic Students' Front has not been done earlier and the article page at wikipedia e something one of the very first of its kind. !!! In this context , we have hard copies that corroborates the existence of Democratic Students' Front ??? Would they provide to be useful ??? And in what other ways can we provide the secondary reliable sources ?? Thank you !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.41.242 (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student organizations that exist at only a single university tend to be non-notable per WP:ORG. Even if this organization can overcome that tendency and establish notability, this article is completely unsourced and does not appear to have been written from a neutral point of view. If indeed this organization ought to have an article in Wikipedia, it would need to be completely rewritten. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:37, 15 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1978 UFO sightings in New Jersey

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

Conspiracy theory of US Air Force supposedly shooting an alien and hiding its body...based on rumors and cited to fringe web pages. LuckyLouie (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 17:03, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with UFO sightings in the United States. Victão Lopes ^Fala! 18:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only references are to unreliable fringe websites. Nothing worth merging. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More fringey nonsense. WP has too much of this kind of stuff! --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't delete nonsense, merely because it's "fringey". Black helicopter and grey aliens are all fringe theories, but they're all backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. This article isn't. Alansohn (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with User:Cullen328. Finnegas (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ARG2 (gene)

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

The article is on type II arginase, not the gene itself. The article on Arginase already covers the type II isoenzyme. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – ARG2 is about both the gene and the enzyme encoded by that gene. We also have an article about the ARG1 enzyme/gene. Arginase is about the enzyme reaction and has links back to both ARG1 and ARG2. If anything, these three article should be merged, not deleted. However because of their size, it would be impractical to transclude both {{PBB/383}} (ARG1) and {{PBB/384}} (ARG2) into the same article. Hence I am opposed to both the deletion or the merger. Boghog (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Boghog. These pages are part of the gene wiki project and hopefully will be populated with information specific to the gene and its product. The arginase article is rather more general in its scope. A2-33 (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons mentioned and especially after the cleanup of this article by Boghog. Andrew Su (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2013 (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 The Contender Asia#Contestants. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joakim Karlsson

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

Non-notable kickboxer Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants Doesn't meet WP:KICK and has no significant independent coverage. Amateur events do not count towards notability according to WP:KICK (and that silver medal is not sourced either).Mdtemp (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
redirect I agree with Mdtemp.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2013 (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 The Contender Asia#Contestants. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Sylvestre

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

Unreferenced non-notable kickboxer Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants I don't see evidence that he meets WP:KICK and the article has no sources, so redirect.Mdtemp (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Unsourced article with no indication of notability. Redirect better than deletion.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What.

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

Shameless promotion of a future iTune release. No indication of notability - Altenmann >t 16:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another (SPA?) editor offers in its defense that this page "is the only information available on [Mr. Burnham's project] at the moment," but that implies that there are no published sources outside Wikipedia to cite in the article -- which means it is unsourced and must be deleted. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there are no known sources yet from which to cite--and therefore its deletion may be justified--there is also ample indication of notability to suggest that this forthcoming album will have requisite sources, and its Wikipedia page will be completely validated as of its release date from Comedy Central records on December 17th. Comedy Central Records is a reputable company with a consistent history of accurate press-release, and in the event that this process of deletion last past December 17, the efforts put towards it will more than likely be reversed. User:Dr. Carey, D.D.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.170.66 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CRYSTAL. "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." While this show and album may prove to be popular, there is no evidence that it is widely anticipated, nor any evidence of popular discussion of it to cite. Wikipedia isn't intended as a medium for producers to stimulate this discussion, nor a venue for press releases. Dwpaul ^Talk 21:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be WP:TOOSOON. We could even userfy it until it makes it big. ;) SarahStierch (talk) 04:15, 12 December 2013 (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 The Contender Asia#Contestants. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Wright

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

On notability grounds. This is the third nomination for the name but clearly different people. Still non-notable kickboxer. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 16:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Contender Asia#Contestants I don't see evidence that he meets WP:KICK or WP:GNG, so redirect.Mdtemp (talk) 17:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Mdtemp that he doesn't seem to merit his own article.204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Youakim

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

Non-notable local politician. Fails to establish WP:POLITICIAN - news coverage is trivial. Article borders on advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 16:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - City council member of a town of 17,600 people is not sufficient to meet the standard for elected politicians. Basically an unelected politician seeking higher office, which longstanding consensus has chosen to omit from the encyclopedia. The campaigns create, we delete, and so it goes. My own personal sentiment would be to keep all of these, but I realize that I am in a small minority on this matter and the consensus is clear. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Africa Check

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

No evidence of notability. Non-notable couple of months old website, wiki entry created without any substantial sources and pushed by single editor Caul shivers (talk) 14:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This appears not to be a WP:GOODFAITH nomination. The article is well-sourced with reliable sources including The New York Times and Voice of America. The nomination may be motivated by the WP:POV in South African farm attacks and the edit war I do not want to engage in here. Note also that the nomination was made by an IP 146.90.47.98, which is pretty much a single purpose followed by the creation of a single purpose account Caul shivers. I am One of Many (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article isn't exactly neutral and sounds vaguely spammy (it exists "to improve fact checking and news gathering in Africa"; how neutral!), but it's clearly notable, and comparatively little work would be needed to make it neutral. Nyttend (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I discovered Africa Check when I ran across South African farm attacks and did a search on this topic. I decided to do further research on Africa Check to see if it is a reliable source and I found that it appeared to be notable but didn't have an article. I modeled the article roughly on FactCheck.org. I don't want it to come across as spammy, I just summarized what I found in the sources. I am One of Many (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per significant coverage in The Economist and Voice of America. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge near Prachantakham railway station

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

No evidence of notability. (The bridge doesn't even have a name.) Cited to photos on a railway enthusiast website, which is not a reliable source. Paul_012 (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be this bridge which crosses a pond outside of the town. There doesn't seem anything remarkable about it nor does it seem to have any amount of secondary coverage from reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with this article (and other Thailand railway bridge articles) is that they are sourced from a forum. I think it highly unlikely that a railway bridge does not have a name, or some other designation (e.g. bridge number), there has just not been a source to provide the name. Notability has not been established (and cannot be when we don't even know the name).Martin451 23:19, 9 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnamoncoin

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

No assertion or evidence of notability given. Trivialist (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent sources. - Altenmann >t 16:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable cryptocurrency. I can't find any coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking references, and a search did not turn up any RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! media. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Dice Monsters

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

This does not establish notability independent of Yu-Gi-Oh! through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! media. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per NinjaRobotPirate. Samwalton9 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! media, likely search term for those who follow Yu-Gi-Oh! - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Yu-Gi-Oh! media, not enough individual notability.LM2000 (talk) 02:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mills (fictional agent)

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

He doesn't seem to be a notable secret agent, nor does the trilogy in which he appears. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Manning O'Brine. The author is probably notable having written screenplays for a few films and published a lot of books, though finding sources will involve searching through newspaper databases. As for this character, I seriously doubt he's covered in sufficient detail for a stand-alone article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 18:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The character does not seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. All I see on Google are a few fan sites. There's nothing worthwhile to merge, and this is an unlikely search term. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (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 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Cassiano Marcelo

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

No evidence of notability. Repeated removal of CSD-A7 tag by newly registered users. GILO A&E⇑ 12:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Being the CEO of a company is not a declaration of significance if the company itself is a non-notable creation of the schoolboy who is the subject. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: repeated removal of speedy deletion tags by multiple users. Oh, well. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:34, 8 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jokerr

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

Wholly non-notable, regardless of the WP:PUFFERY. Sole ref's are Facebook and the person's own webpage. Discs are non-charting. Collaborations are non-notable. Fails WP:NMUSIC in all aspects - not to mention a complete failure to follow the Manual of Style ES &L 10:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nn. musician with puffery. jni (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it a copyvio (the "he isn't a rapper he isn't a singer" is copied from this and the "Biography (Who Is The Jokerr?)" is copied from here) but the subject blatantly fails WP:NMUSIC. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 01:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Update Ive completely redone the page and completely gotten rid of the puffery and i'm currently working on getting more references to make it more valid and full, this is my first wikipedia edit. If i did something wrong please let me know because i am new to this. (User: Joshuaaaronhill) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaaaronhill (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has received some coverage in reliable sources, such as [6], but certainly not enough to pass WP:GNG. Also seemingly fails WP:MUSICBIO. I would support a WP:INCUBATE for User: Joshuaaaronhill as he seems to be working on it and since the article is not a copyright violation mess anymore. STATic message me! 16:45, 10 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbowl Marketing

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

All the references are direct unvarnished press releases, based on press releases, or the founder's own publications, or their own web profiles. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent indications of notability.- Altenmann >t 17:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unable to find any hits for them on Google News or Books. No presumption of notability. Ibadibam (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (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. Nomination withdrawn. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one country singles of 2013 (Canada)

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

The chart itself, Canada Country, is not discussed in independent third-party sources; in fact, outside of being published once a week only in its subscription site, the chart receives no coverage in Billboard itself. No mention of its methodology nor is it listed on their list of charts, so what significance is it to reach number one on this chart if no one talks about it? There is no wiki-article on the subject of the chart. Not every chart published by a trade magazine needs a list like this. As is, does not pass WP:STANDALONE. A similar discussion took place last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourg Digital Songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 09:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.The Chart Does Exist and Does Not Violate any standards. All information is cited and and is in order. A lot of work has been done on country music pages by other users to accommodate the chart. It would be hard work to reverse all of that. They evidently saw nothing wrong with the page. That is all I have to say. SR11 (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canada Country is the official country music chart in Canada. It's published in the weekly Nielsen Music Canadian Update and on the Radio & Records website. The methodology is clearly explained on the R&R link and a list of monitored stations is available here. Artists' performance on the chart is frequently mentioned in third-party sources (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and so on). The only prior issue with the inclusion of the Canadian country chart was the lack of an archive. That has since been resolved and this article is sufficiently sourced and up to par with List of number-one country singles of 2013 (U.S.). Eric444 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll withdrawal but maybe some of this info should be added to the article, eh? Also, very few of the sources even mention Billboard, calling it the BDS Canada Country Airplay Chart. They may be published by Billboard (only found using the chart search function of their business website - along with hundreds of other minor charts) and represent an archive but they are compiled by BDS. The first two months need a non-Billboard source. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Literary Juice

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

No apparent notability for this small online magazine. The review in ref 2 counted on to show notability says in effect that it isn't notable yet. DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "[Founder Sarah Rajan] cited search engine optimization as a key concept in the magazine’s continued success." (Source) This Wikipedia article was obviously created as a part of the campaign to promote her work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the promotional nature, I should mention that it's not notable. I was unable to find any sources beyond those already discounted by DGG. Even if the review isn't discounted, the other source (The Observer) is a student newspaper, which I don't think is good enough to establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom and NinjaRobotPirate. Promotional in tone with little, if any, coverage. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yasufumi Soejima

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

Unsourced BLP with no significant coverage found. I found a few brief mentions with credits on a few productions, but nothing significant and unless some decent sources can be found there's no basis for an article. Michig (talk) 07:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As unsourced BLP with unclear notability. (This article could have been PRODed instead.) --DAJF (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AVAD

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

Basically promotional article about barely notable company. Should never have been accepted in this state from AfC DGG ( talk ) 07:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of notability. The "awards" listed are trivial. Created by single-purpose account with glaring COI. - Altenmann >t 17:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2013 (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:Jni per CSD A7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MC Sai

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

Marketing and unreferenced Itsalleasy (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2013 (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, blanked by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachit Kapoor

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

I deleted the article during the AFD because the author requested it, however since they have reposted the article and since it wasn't deleted at AFD it isn't liable for G4 deletion. I'll inform the editors who voted in the last AFD. Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:CRIN by having not played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket. By extension fails WP:ATH. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique de Maison

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

This article appears to be written about a non-notable buisnesswoman. The page is also in very bad shape, but that can be fixed. Notability can't Tazerdadog (talk) 05:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 06:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete nn. - Altenmann >t 17:18, 8 December 2013 (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) 22:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myrrha P. Satow

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

From a brief bit of research, I fear that she may not pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of Dr. Satow's scholarship and educational leadership are found using her full name. Consider searching for "Myrrha Satow" and "Myrrha Pammer," the latter being her legal name when she first earned her PhD. I have read Wikipedia's guidelines and am confused as to why Satow doesn't meet the criteria. Mhoffbauer (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! That's super exciting that you found multiple reliable sources attesting to Satow's notability. Can you please share some of those sources? Then we can improve the article, and hopefully keep the article. Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is caught up in a scandal involving nepotism and excessive CEO pay from tax payer funds.[7] I don't think that alone is enough to Keep per BLP1E, since prior to the scandal there are only a couple trivial news quotes:[8][9] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, essentially because it would be an WP:NPOV violation to keep only the meager positive sources about her now in the article and not mention the negative ones, but the negative ones fail WP:NOTNEWS as there is no evidence that this story has any long-term interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Federal prison

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

Sort of a procedural nomination. User:Jmeeter prodded this with the rationale: "This article offers no useful information, and frankly, the most useful information regarding federal prison can be found at Federal Bureau of Prisons." I think this is broadly correct, but problematic because federal prison is a very plausible search term, so deleting rather than redirecting is inadvisable. One solution might be to redirect it to Federal Bureau of Prisons, but I don't think it's especially helpful to redirect a general/universal topic to a region-specific one. Another solution would be to redirect to prison, but that would leave all the articles that link to federal prison linking to a term almost so vague as to be redundant. Among the many articles that link to it, I think some links could be removed, while others would be better if they pointed to the relevant region-specific articles. Basically, I'm not sure and am not advocating a specific solution; I'm just unconvinced that deletion via prod would've taken the complexities listed above into account, and hopeful that discussion here can find a better answer. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are numerous books about the US prison system and so the obvious answer is to read some and start editing per our editing policy. AFD is not an article editing service. Warden (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The wealth of sources on the U.S. federal prison system is reflected in our article on the U.S. federal prison system (Federal Bureau of Prisons). This article is not about the U.S. federal prison system, it's about all federal prisons. Which of the speedy keep criteria do you think applies? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are federal prisons in places other than the US, as the article plainly states. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITEXISTS. You're correct that there are federal prisons in places other than the U.S., but are they notable as a concept? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. There are certainly differences between federal and, um, non-federal prisons, as shown here and here ("The [US] federal prisoner population is also unique from the state prisoner population, most notably in offense distribution"). This US General Accounting Office report, "Federal and State Prisons / Inmate Populations, Costs, and Projection Models", gives separate statistics for the two. In Canada, federal prisons house inmates with sentences over two years, provincial ones the rest.[10] They must be administered by different government agencies, with different regulations, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah. I'm not disputing any of that. Information about federal prisons in the U.S. goes in the Federal Bureau of Prisons, while coverage of their Canadian counterparts belongs in Correctional Service of Canada. I'm struggling to see an argument for notability that applies to this article. Thanks for responding though. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 13:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a multinational subject, ~~e.g. Prisons in Germany are all federal~~. There should be some overall article to cover it. It can't be a redirect, and a dab page would be rather inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Alll prisons in Germany are state (land). [11] - Altenmann >t 17:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No suitable redirect has been suggested, and it is a very likely search term. A dab page is not an option because of the need to explain the concept. The article is inadequate at present, but the answer is to improve it. There are other federated states to be included, and some general comments could be made on the concept. There is nothing inevitable about the US pattern - it is possible to have all prisons locally administered and offenders against federal law incarcerated there, just as there is nothing inevitable about having a local criminal jurisdiction. In both Germany and Russia criminal jurisdiction is reserved to the federal power but in Russia the prisons would seem to be centrally administered, in Germany not. There are arguments to be made for and against the concept - for example the regime in locally run and federal prisons might be different for people ostensibly serving the same penalty, a disproportionate number of offenders might come from one area but the cost of incarceration in a federal prison would fall on the centre, etc. A satisfactory article could be written with appropriate sources, since these things will have been discussed in a general way as well as on the specifics of the local situation. --AJHingston (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone finds WP:RS which describes a common term, "federal prison" in international setting, they are welcome to write an article. In the current state it is 50% false. - Altenmann >t 17:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the difficulty is that great. If federal prisons are prisons run by a federal government then it is a matter of comparing countries. In Germany the land run the prisons subject to federal law, in Russia the whole system seems to be federal, in Brazil there are a small number of federal prisons so it appears that the rest of the penal system is run by the states, in the US and Canada there are quite distinct systems. The relevant Australian article explains nothing. The problem is sourcing, but editors with the necessary language skills can solve that. Comparative articles in such cases are quite useful to provide a context, and national summaries may tell users all they want to know; somebody from outside the US wanting to know what a federal prison was might not want to have to read the Federal Bureau of Prisons article which assumes prior knowledge of the US constitution. Expansion can come with time. There is bound to be material on the merits of different systems since countries have had to make that choice. --AJHingston (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a supposedly "generic term" makes sense only when it goes beyond dicdef. Like I said, if one has sources, by any means. - Altenmann >t 19:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While researching the subject I noticed that with the exception of the USA the topic of penal systems is covered very poorly. I guess only in the USA prison inmates have access to edit wikipedia :-) - Altenmann >t 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep, but turn into a disambig page, since (1) it is nothing else (2) there are no federal prisons in Germany [12], and (2) the definition is false (and unreferenced , too). ~~I am doing this now, per WP:BOLD~~ (self-revert per comment below; see my version). - Altenmann >t 17:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea in the middle of an AFD, and see WP:CONCEPTDAB. The US is unusual in having what are effectively parallel penal systems and as pointed out there are differences in approach, not just different examples. --AJHingston (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Reverted. As for CONCEPTDAB, see my comment to the previous voter. (oh, it was you; sorry.) - Altenmann >t 18:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Even without seeing the article, I can say confidently that deletion is a very very bad idea. Deletion is only appropriate when (1) the content in the article doesn't belong here, and (2) the title is unsuitable for use as a redirect. It's obviously good to have federal prison as a bluelink, and we don't need an AFD to decide whether to have an article on this concept or to redirect it to an article on US federal prisons. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside your apparent failure to read either the article or the nomination prior to !voting, which of the speedy keep criteria do you think is applicable here? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Angelini

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

An illustrator who's had his illustrations published and had some oil paintings exhibited. This in itself isn't proof of general notability and I can't see any reliable evidence of receiving any awards - there is no mention of him on any of the awards lists of the Society of Illustrators or the Art Directors Club, for example. Sionk (talk) 11:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No evidence has been produced during this discussion to show that the company itself is notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Food Processing Equipments Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

Seems to be an article on a non-notable company, created by a single-purpose account. Boleyn (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:41, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the references I added, all of which deal with a specific project in which the subject played a significant part, are probably just about enough to indicate notability, especially given the likely existence of non-English sources which I wouldn't know how to find. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references found would be useful if supporting an article about the Ghazipur abattoir, but their coverage of this firm (Food Processing Equipments Company Pvt. Ltd.) is effectively passing mention as a contractor; a firm going about its business but not enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH encyclopaedic criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete. zero notability as a business. - Altenmann >t 18:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Ghazipur slaughterhouse or something similar. Subject is notable but, as Arms & Hearts has pointed out, the contractor behind it doesn't appear to be the focus of the topic. Ibadibam (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not opposed to this but sort of worried about NPOV concerns? Like, if the article is on the company it could plausibly be expanded to cover other operations that weren't apparent failures, whereas an article on the slaughterhouse is more likely to remain as a reflection of the mostly negative coverage we currently have. A useful parallel might be an author or musician, where significant coverage of a novel or album would be enough to establish notability? That seems like a bit of a stretch but I can't think of any immediately obvious reason the same rough principle wouldn't apply in this case. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 06:34, 14 December 2013 (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 Sibelius Software. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Auralia (software)

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

May fail our general notability guidelines. I tried to find multiple reliable secondary sources and had little luck, but I could be wrong. SarahStierch (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to software company, Sibelius Software. Notability and RS references insufficient for a separate article on the software, but the company is notable.Dialectric (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2013 (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. One !vote for keeping but without offering any support from policy for his argument. I assess that the arguments for deletion are correct. JodyB_talk 12:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Cernat

AfDs for this article:

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

Perhaps it takes a refined sense of masochism to launch a second AfD on a no-name Romanian actress after seeing the first languish for a month and then flop, but hey. Actually, I do believe that was a "delete", but I won't try to argue, so here's the second nomination.

Right. Well, rather than trying to rehash all the points I made during first nomination, do look at it yourselves. I discuss every point on every "source" in detail there. Basically, we have an actress whose name crops up in cast lists, directories and that sort of thing. What we manifestly do not have is independent evidence that Cernat has had "significant roles in multiple notable... stage performances" as mandated by WP:ENT (never mind the other two clauses of that policy; there's no question of her passing those), or that "she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject", per WP:BASIC. Thus, delete.

Seems simple enough, doesn't it? I only hope this one lasts a week rather than a month. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete No evidence of notability per guideline. - Altenmann >t 18:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess the nominator seems to have a valid point; she's a competent stage actress, without any evidence of notability in that profession.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I understand your point, but when I see that this person appears in so many different independent sources, that's when I begin to doubt. So I suggested to Biruitorul, the editor who proposed the deletion and then proposed it again immediately when the first nomination failed, that being he's Romanian and the subject is Romanian and there exists an article about this subject on the Romanian Wikipedia, perhaps he could nominate the Romanian article for deletion first. Then we would be able to see what Romanian editors think about these Romanian sources and about the notability of this Romanian person. I think it would allow us to make a much more informed decision here. Cheers, Azylber (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're not showing evidence in support of your keep votes. Sure there are sources that mention her existence as an actress, but nothing showing she is notable, e.g., profiles of her life.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 23:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Azylber, but your suggestion will continue being ignored: no guideline requires or even suggests going to ask ro.wiki editors their opinion; this is a matter for English Wikipedia editors to sort out.
Now how about you tell us whether, per the WP:BASIC standard of biographical notability, Cernat "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources", or whether, per WP:ENT, she "has had significant roles in multiple notable ... stage performances"? This article has been at AfD for close to two months, and you still have failed to provide any sort of convincing evidence of the subject's notability. Asking me to launch an AfD at ro.wiki cannot mask that stark reality. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:28, 11 December 2013 (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) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Walk Into Mordor

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish notability per WP:GNG. There are sources that mention the project, mostly in the form of a couple of paragraphs and a link to one or another of the episodes. They could also just be re-written press releases since they all contain substantially the same information. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2013 (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/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources present on the article, except for one news story that doesn't even mention the subject of this article. Nyttend (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or other inclusion criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:36, 10 December 2013 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mesirow Financial

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

This article looks like an advertisement to me. Roll it back? Well, the article was promotional even when it was first created. It doesn't really matter whether or not the company meets the GNG or WP:CORP: the article is promotional.

Please slow-delete per CSD G11.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though the article is looking advertised, i believe after clean up it will be notable contribution to WikiProject Companies. Remember most of the company articles are originally created by their employees and other stake holding parties which have to be edited accordingly. Mr RD (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr RD.

I see you've only been around since April 2013. Let me explain a little more of my perspective; maybe I will convince you to become a deletionist. It seems to me that, over time, COI users have been creating spam articles at a greater rate than devoted Wikipedians can fix them. If it weren't for deletion, then the problem would be even worse. And so I am a deletionist.

And about the article up for deletion: Anyone is welcome to fix it within the next seven days, but if nobody does, I recommend that it be deleted.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search shows that the company is notable. Promotional articles about notable topics should be edited to remove the promotionalism, as I have tried to do in this case. Nominator, an AfD debate is not the appropriate venue to attempt to recruit less experienced editors to philosophies like "deletionism" or "inclusionism". Let's keep the focus on the notability of the topic, where it belongs. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a reasonably large and old organization; deserves to be known. - Altenmann >t 18:32, 8 December 2013 (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. There is no clear consensus to delete the article at this time. Furthermore, User:BullRangifer is reminded to place a notice on articles brought here, and to not use AFD as a method for improving an article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason (multi-agent systems development platform)

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

The article seems to be self-promotion of the article creator's own product and sources. It needs secondary sourcing and evidence of notability. I have nothing against the subject, product, or article creator, but hope to generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping. As it is now, it's woefully deficient. Just as we have "biographies" here, not "autobiographies", we shouldn't have articles created by those with a significant COI. I'm sure participants will be able to point out even more relevant arguments for deleting or keeping this article. I sincerely hope that the result will be enough improvement of the article to justify keeping it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cant include every piece of software on wikipedia, maybe it will reach notability later.Ottawakismet (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that no AfD notice has been placed on the Jason (multi-agent systems development platform) page, so this isn't yet a proper AfD discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD should not be used to, "Generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping." ~KvnG 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2013 (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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AgentSpeak

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

The article seems to be self-promotion of the article creator's own product and sources. It needs secondary sourcing and evidence of notability. I have nothing against the subject, product, or article creator, but hope to generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping. As it is now, it's woefully deficient. The COI problem is quite evident. Just as we have "biographies" here, not "autobiographies", we shouldn't have articles created by those with a significant COI. I'm sure participants will be able to point out even more relevant arguments for deleting or keeping this article. I sincerely hope that the result will be enough improvement of the article to justify keeping it. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that no AfD notice has been placed on the AgentSpeak page, so isn't yet a proper AfD discussion. --Mark viking (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - AfD should not be used to, "Generate enough interest to see that these concerns are met and the article brought up to speed for keeping." ~KvnG 18:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MET Laboratories, Inc.

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

Fails the general notability guideline after a brief good-faith search for sources; most sources I found were passing mentions or press releases, the most extensive independent coverage I could find was two short paragraphs in a book.[13] —me_and 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —me_and 19:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —me_and 19:17, 24 November 2013 (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/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only because I hit one edit conflict and one server error. sigh —me_and 19:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2013 (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greener festivals

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

Content appears to be OR. Article is used to promote various events; the "references" are link spam. It might be a notable topic with a different title and real content; then again, maybe it's redundant vis-à-vis Sustainable event management. –Ringbang (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Green Festivals, a stub treating a similar (the same?) concept. Also also, A Greener Festival was speedy deleted in 2008, but its content now resides at User:Benchallis/A Greener Festival. Cnilep (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green Festivals (proper noun) were jointly created by an NPO and an NGO in the United States, and seem to me to meet the GNG. And that article seems pretty neutral to me. The article for deletion here, Greener festivals (common noun), is about a general class of festival as defined by the author, and is transparently abused by various contributors for event promotion. Ringbang (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No one has suggested any reason why this page should be kept. My "cf. other stuff" comment was not offered as an argument for or against deletion. I am offering an admittedly hollow deletion !vote now because I see no reason not to WP:SOFTDELETE the thing. Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2013 (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. Like Spartaz said, there is no necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required by WP:BLP that is mentioned in this debate, with trumps a guideline like WP:PORNBIO and the keep commentators keep using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument. Secret ^account 19:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kiera King

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

A BLP without a single reliable secondary source and the only claim to notability in the article would be from PORNBIO which no longer has consensus and is now disputed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This discussion has been inactive for over a month and no changes have been made to WP:PORNBIO, which is still a valid guideline on WP. Kiera King has been nominated for two XBIZ Awards for "New Starlet of the Year" in 2010 and "Best Supporting Actress" in 2014. Both of those are well-known and significant industry awards and none of them are scene-related. One of those awards is still pending, so lets not forget that there is a possibility that she might actually win it. Regardless of whether she wins or not, two individual performer award nominations are sufficient. The consensus established by this discussion concludes that newcomer awards in pornography such as the XBIZ Award for New Starlet of the Year are notable. Here is an AfD for Capri Anderson which concluded that a Best Supporting Actress award is also notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to comment that pornbio is marked as disputed, ergo it doesn't have consensus at this time. Its also not enforced so is clearly depreceated. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is unfortunately no consensus in this discussion here on how to change the current PORNBIO standard, but that does not mean that standard has been "clearly depreceated". It is true that PORNBIO does not currently receive much of any deference at DRV though. I personally feel that, at this late date, that the "disputed" tag should either be removed from PORNBIO or some form of dispute resolution is in order. I've been previously tempted to just act boldly & just change the PORNBIO standard in more restrictive way, but I'm not sure that would be constructive at this time. Guy1890 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually (and thankfully), Guy, porn-related articles are getting a fair chance at DRV now. And I previously removed the {{disputed}} tag from WP:PORNBIO myself, but then it was reinstated. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're apparently living in a fantasy world if you think that DRV discussion is going anywhere "Erpert", and I can't help you with that. I am aware of the very recent edit history of the PORNBIO standard. Edit warring over it isn't going to help anything. Guy1890 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Edit-warring? I removed the tag a single time. And I didn't comment in the WP:BIO talk page discussion about the topic at all. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per, well, everything Rebecca said. And the nominations were present at the time of this AfD. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 00:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's say for second that PORNBIO has been "depreceated", which it hasn't...this article passes under the ANYBIO standard, since the subject here has "been nominated for a well-known and significant award several times". There is consensus that the "New Starlet of the Year" & "Best Supporting Actress" awards are both well-known & significant. Guy1890 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails the GNG. Article is a BLP without reliable independent sourcing. Subject's claimed award nominations are provided by a PR business and determined by its clients, highly suspect indicators of notability even before the extraordinarily high number of nominations in each category and the perpetually expanding number of award categories is taken into account. The community has repeatedly rejected the presumption that all individual porn awards meet the "well-known/significant" standard in the relevant guidelines. Instead, the community has taken the eminently sound and reasonable position that such BLPs without any significant, reliably sourced biographical content or other coverage should not be kept. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Subject's claimed award nominations are provided by a PR business and determined by its clients" This is an occasionally repeated claim that apparently has no objective facts to back it up. That it is unfortunately repeated again & again is really irrelevant. "The community has repeatedly rejected the presumption that all individual porn awards meet the 'well-known/significant' standard in the relevant guidelines"...and it's also rejected the idea (that you're subtly trying to push here) that basically no adult industry awards ever meet PORNBIO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a biography without secondary sources.—S Marshall T/C 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent notability info. The mentioned award is a routine one issued to hundreds. - Altenmann >t 18:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one thing to get nominated for major awards by major independent nominators, e.g. if you're repeatedly on the Nobel Committee's short list of 300 people for the Nobel Prize. It's another thing for small-name awards when we don't have solid evidence about who does the nominating. For some awards, anyone can do the nominating, so a loose reading of WP:ANYBIO would mean that anyone could self-nominate until they'd passed the WP:ANYBIO standards. We shouldn't have an article unless in the future she clearly passes the standard of getting multiple independent reliable sources, or unless she ends up doing something else that makes her clearly notable, like qualifying under WP:POLITICIAN or WP:ATHLETE. Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The two awards in question here have not been won by hundreds of people, and there is no evidence that the subject here has been "self-nominated" at all. Guy1890 (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But you do agree that we are lacking the necessary detailed secondary reliable sources required by BLP for living persons' bios? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could the article's sources be improved? Sure, but the article was only just created a few days ago. What this AfD appears to be about is circumventing PORNBIO, which was labelled as being "disputed" by none other than yourself. I don't appreciate that kind of behavior. Guy1890 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This AFD is about whether someone with no reliable sources to their name should have an article because of an outdated SNG which conflicts with BLP/GNG that only 3 editors defend says that they should. Plenty of uninvolved editors have commented on the discussion at WT:Notability (persons) and their view supports mine that PORNBIO can't be enforced and DRV and AN agrees with that position. Note that the 3 editors arguing to keep PORNBIO have all commented here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are some reliable sources attached to the current article here. I've been advocating for changes to PORNBIO (both here & elsewhere) for months now, and, by my count, both your position and my position on the potential future composition of PORNBIO would likely lead to this article that's in question here to no loner meet our notability standards. You're an apparent, long-time DRV closer by your own accord "Spartaz", and that's also been discussed at length elsewhere. My point is simply this...what's the big rush? Guy1890 (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There are no reliable secondary sources in this article. There are: a self-published database, a kayfabe interview which plainly misrepresents the subject's career, a warmed-over press release, and a self-published nominations list. In the absence of suitable reliable sources, we should not have a BLP for this pseudonym. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The IAFD is a obviously not a database that was "self-published" by the article subject here. My understanding is that IAFD uses, in part, the required legal doumentation that is used to verify an adult performer's age, background, etc.. The interview in question here is merely used to highlight how the article subject originally got involved in the adult industry, which, while not being overly interesting, isn't controversial at all. As for the "warmed-over press release", who better to report on who was nominated for which awards then the agency that is administering those same award ceremonies? Wikipedia also does not have a moratorium on press releases as citations either, especially for non-controversial content. Lastly, the subject here obviously did not "self-publish" or "self-nominate" herself for any award. Again, would I choose to write an article exactly like the article in question here? Probably not, but that's really neither here nor there IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You plainly don't understand BLP requirements; you have things exactly backwards. WP:BLP says, unmistakeably, plain as day, Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject. (There are limits on the use of subject-published sources, not really at issue here.) Your failure to understand such a simple point calls into question whether you should be involved with BLPs at all, and is inexplicable in an active, experienced editor. Even worse is your argument that a kayfabe interview (which contradicts the relevant published filmographies) is a reliable source for a BLP, "not overly interesting" or otherwise. It's hard to see any reason to believe you're not being deliberately disruptive. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again Mr. Wolfowitz, I understand that at least part of what you view your role here on Wikipedia is to be the "Wikipedia BLP Police", but, again, fortunately no one has died & left you with that role. There is, of course, no blanket moratorium on using self-published sources on Wikipedia, and there are, again, no self-published sources in use in the article in question here. In any event, our BLP guidelines state: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." One of the key phrases there is, of course, "contentious material". The BLP guidelines also state: "Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources." Again, press releases are not banned as sources on Wikipedia at all. The interview used here in the article in question isn't being used as a "filmography" at all...it's merely being used to add some completely non-controversial information, which could easily be removed from the article without seriously, negatively impacting it IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The argument that an article which passes PORNBIO should still be deleted if they don't pass GNG as well has been rejected by consensus several times. Some recent examples include Loona Luxx, Mike Adriano, and Celeste Star. The claim that articles which don't pass GNG violate BLP is also false. BLP simply requires an article to have a neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research. Rebecca1990 (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        You're plainly representing BLP in order to promote your view in this dispute. The three standards you list are minimum standards that every article must meet; they are not BLP-specific, and are not the only standards by which BLPs are assessed. WP:BLP states, plain as day, in its lede section, that BLP content "requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV); Verifiability (V); No original research (NOR)." You inexplicably mutilate this policy text to remove the heightened requirements enacted into policy to meet WMF requirements. BLP policy also goes on to require editors to "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources," a standard that the press release and kayfabe sources in the article plainly fail. Your other argument is quite vacuous; that some articles challenged on GNG issues survive AFDs in no way proves that all of them should. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I did not "mutilate" policy text, I simply gave a brief explanation of what the BLP requirements are. What do you expect me to do? Copy the entire BLP page and paste it here? Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I expect you, like every other editor, to show good faith when discussing Wikipedia policies. You have not done so. ead, you have deliberately misrepresented the terms of BLP in order to push your side in a dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly what part of BLP did I "deliberately misrepresent"? We are here to discuss if the subject meets the WP notability guidelines, not if the article is BLP compliant, which it is so you're wasting your time trying to prove that it isn't. The article isn't an WP:Attack page, WP:BLPDELETE doesn't apply to this article because it doesn't contain any contentious material, and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE doesn't apply because the subject hasn't requested deletion and this discussion has three "keep" votes so far so and BLPREQUESTDELETE states "the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion", meaning the "delete" vote must be unanimous and it isn't. I think that's everything, if I missed something else related to deletion of articles in the BLP page then let me know. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anoncoin

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

The typical laundry list of complaints against most cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia, really: Not notable. Not mentioned at all in the meaningful references. Article is filled with largly insignificant technical trivia and mainly exists to promote a product. Links to several currency exchanges to lure in new users. Smite-Meister (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - As a subject matter expert, I feel that this article is useful. While Wikipedia is missing articles on a large number of crypocurrencies, we shouldn't use that as a reason to delete this page. Could it use cleanup? Yes. Is it notable per WP:N? Absolutely. See also: List of Cryptocurrencies -Don4of4 ^[Talk] 05:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate a bit as to why it's notable? Several pages of Google search results only include the project page, random webforums, twitter messages, mining pool sites and exchanges, nothing substantial. Smite-Meister (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anoncoin is notable because it has key design differences from the other crypocurrencies. For instance, it is the only currency which supports i2p, making it highly appealing to those who wish to stay anonymous. As Bitcoin becomes mainstream, Anoncoin is highly likely to take it's place as the median of exchange for the underbelly of the web. -Don4of4 ^[Talk] 21:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find some good third-party sources which demonstrate all this? Without references it's just another special interest software project with no general notability. If it becomes notable at some later time a reconsideration would be in order. Smite-Meister (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Deleting this page would be reduce the global wealth of knowledge, and that would be travesty, but it wouldn't be the first time obtuse people have done this. If there is one single independent article published about Anonocoin, then I see no reason to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasaka (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete insufficient independent indication of notability. - Altenmann >t 18:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An epic failure of GNG — a simple Google search for the name returns 84 responses — not 84,000,000, not 84,000, but just 84 — of which I see exactly zero count to GNG. Obviously promotional in intent, because if you can make money from nothing you get chicks for free, or something like that. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the fact that the name was uttered in passing in The Economist should be mentioned. Not substantial coverage... Carrite (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Image

AfDs for this article:

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

Cited sources are either unrelated or unreliable, it seemed to me also as a promotion so I speedyied the article, but it was declined. It's also an orphan so it's very likely not notable. Alex^{discussion ★} 02:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Nothing promotional here: the company is defunct. An interesting and reasonably referenced piece of history. - Altenmann >t 19:01, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article and it's meant to do exactly what wikipedia is designed for: record history. It's not promotional as the company has been dead for almost 15 years. It's reference material for researchers as just like everybody remembers Orville and Wilbur Wright as inventors of the aircraft they don't realize there were lots of people working on it (including D'Avinci who was way ahead of his time). Liquid Image was an early developer 15 years ago of device and technology that are finally coming to market now: Google Glass and all the other augmented reality toys. The reference material is valuable and aligns with why Wikipedia was formed in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.114.94 (talk) 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article makes a valid claim to notability and the newspaper article at this link (which make take a while to load) is an adequate reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Counselor of Tragedy

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

DePRODed by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Regretfully, it appears that this article might not pass Wikipedia's general notability guidelines without any reliable secondary sources to back it up. I'd also take a look at WP:CRYSTAL to learn why this article might not be able to be on Wikipedia yet. Thank you!. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. There were no sources to be found during my search for them. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} _{my edits} 02:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. I can't find anything to actually back up that this show really exists. The only source on the article comes up with a blank page and the search hits for Google in the Hangul bring up nothing that I could find. Considering that this is supposed to have 50 episodes already filmed, you'd think that there would be some sort of hit that would show up on Google. Even if it hasn't shown yet, filming that amount of episodes would get some sort of notice. I'm tagging it as a hoax, but in the slim chance that it isn't a hoax, it does appear to be non-notable. I know that not having a page on another Wikipedia isn't always a sign of something being a hoax, but I note that there is no equivalent page on the Korean Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 8 December 2013 (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 Treehouse (company). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Carson

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

Seems promotional, likely created by self. Should probably be deleted or merged to the Treehouse article. Another Believer _(Talk) 17:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not create the page initially, as you can see in the pages history, therefore it does not violate Wikipedia's policy on Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. I discovered the page when I was Googling my name. There were several errors that I corrected. I honestly do not intend for this to be self-promotional and I believe the text is now written in a factual and non-emotional tone, with proper references. The reason I added the Media Appearances is to show notability. A Google Image search for "Ryan Carson" shows multiple images of myself. If you Google "Ryan Carson" the first nine entires on the first page of results are related to me. Here is an article on me on TechCrunch which I believe is considered a verifiable source. Ryanleecarson (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ryan. Thank you for participating in this discussion and for taking time to work on the article. Wikipedia has some suggestions about conflict of interest editing, but I always appreciate when someone is upfront and participates in discussions. Unfortunately, I continue to question if this article should be included in the encyclopedia. --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jason, thanks for getting back to me. Could you please tell me your primary concern with the article being included in the encyclopedia? I'm obviously biased but I feel my role in the web industry, which is documented pretty well here, seems to warrant a permanent record in the encyclopedia. There are other signals that might verify this which are the number of followers I have on Twitter (48,000 ) and the number of Facebook followers I have (10,800 ). On a side note, I'm extremely impressed with your contributions to Wikipedia. I've started to edit other pages to see if I can contribute back to the community in the way you have! Ryanleecarson (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, thanks for your kind words. First of all, I do not think a large number of Twitter or Facebook followers is notable. I could "friend" a bunch of people too, but that does not mean I deserve a Wikipedia article. At this point, I think it might be best to just let other people participate in this discussion. Perhaps they will disagree with me and the article will be kept. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the Treehouse article. It looks like he's known for his work with Treehouse than anything else. Perhaps in the future, that could change. SarahStierch (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Howe

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

No top tier fights so fails to meet WP:NMMA and coverage fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pending further discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability. Jennifer Howe was considered the top American WMMA competitor and one of the best in the world. Her entire career pre-dates the criteria you are using from that notability page. All significant WMMA fights/accomplishments have not occurred in the last 5 years, as the standards suggest. Wikipedia standards are fungible and this would be a clear example of using rigid guidelines to throw out an article in the face of common sense.BigKennyK (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both Smackgirls (Jewels predecessor) and Strikeforce existed before, during, and after her career and she still had no top tier fights. Also fails WP:GNG and no evidence of being "one of the best in the world."Mdtemp (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Strikeforce did not have it's first MMA event, male or female, until 2006... after Howe's career. While Smackgirl did exist, regardless of Howe's non-competition in that league, it is not regarded as Tier A under WP:NMMA . While Jewels purchased Smackgirl's assets, it is a wholly separate entity, both for the purposes of real life business and the standards you cite. According to current standards, the first notable WMMA bout ever occurred at Strikeforce: Triple Threat on 12/8/2006. Good sense should tell us the problem is the standard, not this or a similar article. BigKennyK (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to the multiple WP:GNG remarks and the User:Mdtemp's snarky response, this is what a quick internet search reveals:
- http://www.fightmatrix.com/all-time-mma-rankings/ - Fight Matrix's all-time rankings, Howe is #5.
- http://www.fightmatrix.com/fightmatrix-awards/ - Fight Matrix's Women's Fighter of the Year 2003.
- http://www.apocalypsemma.com/2013/01/womens-mma-comes-of-age/ - 2013 article - "almost everyone agrees the first best female mixed martial artist was Jennifer Howe"
- http://scorecardmma.com/index.php/female-mma/female-all-time - Howe is #18 all-time openweight and #7 all-time 135lb./bantamweight
- Countless articles from a variety of publications that mention Howe's quality in the context of discussing fighters she has competed against.
  - The article is poorly sourced, but that does not mean the subject itself fails WP:GNG. These are just examples, so please don't waste time cherry picking attacks on the source material. These just most succinctly illustrate the point. When the article is repaired, the most reliable sources among the many on the internet should be relied upon. BigKennyK (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Since you won't allow me to "attack" the sources, I'll just say I question their reliability and significance (certainly ratings are irrelevant). Could you tell me what "top tier" organizations you believe she fought for to get her 3 top tier fights? 204.126.132.231 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the point is that standard's insufficiency. The organizations classified as "Tier A" were selected by looking at rankings at a moment in time after Howe's career and largely without considering women's MMA at all and counting the organizations with fighters in the various weight classes' top-10s. Had that been done during Howe's career, Iowa Challenge, HookNShoot, International Fighting Championship, and Extreme Challenge all would have qualified at periods in time for having a large number of the significant women's fights/fighters (HNS and IFC most notably). I am NOT suggesting those should be elevated wholesale to "Tier A", but that is how the list would look if the same original standard for creating the men's notable MMA organizations were applied during Howe's career. What we have now is a standard that says "no notable women's MMA fights occured before Strikeforce: Triple Threat on 12/8/2006." I think common sense tells us that's a terrible standard, and this AfD discussion should highlight that. My suggestion is that we apply WP:COMMON here, Keep the article, and initiate a fuller discussion of the standard (perhaps further separating male and female criteria and time periods as pertains to specific organizations). BigKennyK (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not believe the arguments presented by the keep camp are strong enough to supersede the NMMA guideline. The fact of the matter is that the SIGCOV isn't strong enough because Howe is the focus of multiple notable publications . Mkdw ^talk 03:26, 15 December 2013 (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) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rooster Teeth Shorts

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

There do not appear to be independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this series. A search turns up one partial review of a combined DVD release but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. Regardless, the one source is insufficient on its own to meet WP:GNG. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:05, 1 December 2013 (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/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced and fails to pass GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 03:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources to help this pass our general notability guidelines at this time. SarahStierch (talk) 04:17, 12 December 2013 (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) 22:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grilla Fitness

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

Poorly sourced article about a non-notable website. Fails WP:WEBCRIT. (Possibly a candidate for WP:CSD#A7). - Mr X 22:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is the correct way to reply. I wrote the page and I spent almost 2 hours reading up to ensure it is complaint. I am following advise to publish the page to be informative and not advertising which I believe it is both. I'm unsure why you've taken such a stance on it, but I worked hard researching it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.0.142 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria at WP:GNG or elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any reliable secondary sources. SarahStierch (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2013 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen: Breakthru Tour 1989-1990

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

There is no reference for this tour ever happened. We have references that claim that the 1986 Magic Tour was Queen's last tour with Freddie Mercury. See here: [14] and [15]. Both those sources claim that Queen's last tour was in 1986. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While it does seem that some Queen fans make reference to a "Breakthru Tour," I see no mention of it in independently published sources. Content is essentially fan cruft that belongs on Wikia, which is thattaway... ------> (Jimmy Wales thanks you for your business and hopes you are pleased). 03:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen: Headlong Tour 1991

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

There is no reference for this tour ever happened. We have references that claim that the 1986 Magic Tour was Queen's last tour with Freddie Mercury. See here: [16] and [17]. Both those sources claim that Queen's last tour was in 1986. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whereas there is some mention on Queen fan sites of a "Breakthru Tour" (not counting to GNG), I see nothing whatsoever about this purported tour. Clear GNG failure. Carrite (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2013 (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 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Call Me Beta

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

Article is unreferenced, and couldn't find mention of the band in any reliable sources. Seems to fail WP:BAND Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absent notability/verifiability/reliable sourcing, I can't see them meeting the WP:GNG. The article does not so evidence of subject meeting WP:Music. This is an example of why the software should be adjusted to guide new article creators to provide sourcing as they create new articles. Presumably, they know where the info came from. Will initiate dialogue with creator if not yet done. Will evaluate sources as/if they appear. Dloh cierekim 01:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article was tagged for deletion 2" after creation, we can hope that at least one or two links added by the creator will prove to be to reliable sources with significant coverage. I do not know if the itunes or FM.com pages are considered that Certainly, FB, twiiter and tumblr are not. Dloh cierekim 01:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)F[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. No claims of significance or imprtance. No sources with in depth coverage. Band does not even have its own web site - which is easy enough for anybody to do these days (and free), not that this would add to notability.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have a facebook page, but the anti external link bot reverted. Are I tunes and FM.com RS? I'll readd as reator did not Dloh cierekim 02:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do have a webpage @bandcamp. added it back Dloh cierekim 02:49, 8 December 2013 (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.