< 15 April	17 April >

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gedion Zelalem[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A search through Trove, Google Books, Google News, Canberra Times websites, Sydney Morning Herald website, Newsbank, The West Australian all show no results. --LauraHale (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you've got the right discussion? I see no reason to expect coverage in Australian sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So that would be "just not notable", as usual. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 19 April 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. In space, no one can hear it WP:SNOW.(and yes, I know that's an Alien allusion, not Star Trek) postdlf (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation[edit]

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

Unsourced trivia. Almost no references, every drop of info is in-universe fancruft. No out-of-universe notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure about this one. A search on 'Lwaxana Troi' finds her name turning up in multiple archived news stories and any number of books about Star Trek. She at least may be a notable fictional character. I haven't checked the others. Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. These are significant characters in an extremely notable and popular series. Several of them could be the subjects of articles in their own right, although they have been placed here for various reasons. Deleting this article would degrade our encyclopedic content without any compensating benefit; I question the rationale for this nomination. (As a minor point, we might want to retitle this article; it isn't really a List.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, which ones are notable? So far, 99% of the article is in-universe fancruft with no assertation whatsoever of real-world notability. If you're going to say "keep, it's notable", then WP:PROVEIT. I could say that an article on my own ass is notable because it exists, but that doesn't make it notable automatically. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The silly, petulant tone used does your argument no favours. I can see from a cursory glance at the list, plus (sadly) a little personal knowledge that there's no difficulty in referencing this list/page and absolutely no difficulty in asserting notability. Lwaxana Troi for example was portrayed by Star Trek creator's wife Majel Barrett Roddenberry, who also played Nurse Chapel in the original series, Lore, the android was played by Brent Spiner who in addition to his main cast credit in TNG has appeared in numerous Hollywood blockbusters. Guinan was played by an Acadamy Award winner and her back story would prove central to one of the TNG films, Generations. These characters were central to numerous episodes, films, and indeed to different series. That's not to say the page couldn't do with a re-write to take it more from the Memory Alpha perspective to the proper Wikipedia perspective, but it's in no way just unsourced trivia. Nick (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer, there is little doubt that at least a majority of these characters are real-world notable, and I don't see any evidence that you sought to ascertain whether they were or were not before putting this article up for deletion. And given that the article as a whole should clearly be kept, talkpage discussion among knowledgeable editors, rather than an AfD, is the right place to assess whether each specific character mentioned in the article should be included or not. It would of course be better if the article had more references, but that is true of a great many articles on all sorts of subjects, and it would be a misuse of the AfD process to nominate a clearly keepworthy article for deletion in order to compel an accelerated improvement of the referencing. Finally, I see little value to the bizarro-Kmweberish and gratuitously indecorous reference to "your own ass" as a notability comparator; if I did not have a reputation for civility to uphold, I would say the question is not whether you ~~are~~ have a notable ass, but rather whether "your own ass" is where you drew the inspiration for this nomination. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Try searching for any of these in Google Books. They are generally significant enough characters to be included, and sufficient sources exist. --Michig (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (none of them wear red shirts) and rename List of recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation. I'm not a fan of TNG, but these really aren't minor characters, and this is a popular series (god knows why). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books and magazines about Star Trek: TNG. This article prevents people creating individual articles on the characters, but these recurring characters are part of a very famous and widely analysed fictional universe. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again. Sources. Where are they? They won't add themselves. Don't say "keep" unless you plan to fix the article. I see this all the time. Everyone screams "keep, it's notable", but then six years later, the article is still an unsourced pile of fancruft. Are you expecting the Source Fairy to tap her wand and make it FA overnight? Get real. Do some work or don't bother saying "keep". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reasoning established by NYB. — Ched : ? 09:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll take this one on. I think there is some room for the article to be changed drastically. I'm going on a RL holiday shortly so it won't till I get back, but I at least now have the Deep Space Nine Companion too to use as a source. Certainly the ones which already have general articles should be included with a link through to the main article - off the top of my head, that would include Q, Miles O'Brien and Ro Laren. Perhaps something similar to List of The Vampire Diaries characters is warrented but I'll see what I can do first. I expect that Guinan would end up qualifying for an individual article as I know that there is a fair bit out there on the character as well as information related to how they intended to bring her into DS9 at one point. I'll see what I can do, as I could do with a break from episode articles for a bit! Miyagawa (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a "Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion" in a Google book search, but haven't checked Amazon or anything for it. If I spot it at our local used book store I'll grab it though. TY Miyagawa. — Ched : ? 12:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building up a small library thanks to a few purchases on eBay. I have three sourcebooks on TNG now (including the final edition of the companion), one on the original series (although one of the TNG books also covers TOS), one on DS9, and the one on Star Trek Phase II. I've spotted at least five more books I'd like to get. Unfortunatly it's turning into an obsession. Oh and archive.org is a godsend - you wouldn't believe how many interviews that have been deleted from the Star Trek website but have been saved through that website. I'm pretty sure I have sufficient sources to cite everything currently in the article, but I might as well expand it while I'm at it. I've become slightly obsessed with improving the good/featured/dyks on Star Trek recently. Miyagawa (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Newyorkbrad. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly valid list article. Also, the nominator should remove the pointless citation needed tags he placed everywhere. If the section mentions what episode the information is from, please don't mindlessly spam "citation needed" after it. Read what's written before putting that tag all over the place. Dream Focus 14:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a lot of the useless tags. [1] If the short paragraph that list the information, also list what episode or book this happened in, it doesn't need a citation tag. Dream Focus 14:45, 18 April 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. There is no clear target as of now, so I am moving it to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Evolution and Culture as a holding cell. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution and Culture[edit]

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

This reads as a whole lot of original research to me. I don't see anything that is salvageable into and encyclopedia article here but I thought I'd ask around (or that wouldn't already be covered by other articles). Sasquatch t|c 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article looks like a well-written student essay. It seems well cited for individual assertions, but there may be synthesis of all the different concepts discussed, and this is not allowed in WP articles, per WP:SYNTH. Synthesis by itself suggests editing the article to improve it, rather than outright deletion. The other potential problem is that this article may be redundant with other already existing articles. I am no expert, but it seems like Sociocultural evolution, Biocultural evolution, Social evolution, Sociobiology, Darwinian anthropology and Cultural evolutionism all overlap with the current article. --Mark viking (talk) 00:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my general take on it as well. None of the information is wrong, it's just in the wrong place. Sasquatch t|c 19:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I recommend delete, not because none of the information is notable or worthwhile, but because the article itself seems to be largely synthesis based off of useful information that could more effectively be placed elsewhere. Much of what isn't synthesis appears to be covered elsewhere, so the existence of this article is somewhat redundant. Chri$topher (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Defense of Article: Although sociocultural evolution, biocultural evolution, social evolution, sociobiology, darwinian anthropology and cultural evolutionism all appear to be redundant with the current article in question, this article addresses culture as an adaptive function through the lens of Evolutionary Psychology which is very different from the articles listed above. This is the first page to exist on the topic, and could undoubtedly be expanded upon, while the other pages covering the topic only barely address the relevant issues. I vote to keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterofthepages (talk • contribs) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOTESSAY. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) (formerly R——bo) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see what we can merge As mentioned, this is reasonably good writing. It happens not to fit into WP very well, which is the fault of those responsible for the course, in not guiding the student to a more effective encyclopedic focus. I am not happy to delete competent work of this sort completely, and we should see how much of it we can use. (Incompetent work is of course another matter.) There's been considerable discussion of this course on the Education noticeboard; they didn't seem to understand how to find topics, and it's rather late in the term to help them, but we should do what we can. DGG ( talk ) 03:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see what we can merge per essaycism. Specifically I believe that at this moment the easier (or only) content to save would be the theories of culture section either to a general article (I have just found culture theory, which is a really poor article at the moment, but there may be others more suitable), or to the specific theories articles that are described.--Garrondo (talk) 21:31, 25 April 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. Tone 19:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small Town 2013[edit]

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

Film that isn't notable. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or perhaps userfy as being unreleased and lacking the coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. This one is simply TOO SOON. Perhaps after release, it might merit inclusion, but certainly not yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small indie film that represents a first effort for the director and all of the actors. No indications of any media coverage yet, and unlikely any to come in the future. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:16, 17 April 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. Tone 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oz and the Wicked Witches[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, completely unverified content on a film that has yet to enter pre-production or even exist in any form. In fact, a simple query on any search engine shows no results for a film of that name, failing WP:GNG. ~ Jedi94 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found this at NPP and thought it was kind of weird but I never got back to it. I agree with the nominator that it seems to be a hoax. No film with that name appears to be even planned. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources or credibility. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PER WP:BEFORE, PLANNED SEQUEL IS NOT A HOAX: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete for now per TOO SOON. The topic of a sequel to Oz the Great and Powerful is credible, has been announced,[2] and is in pre-production and if one actually looks with proper search parameters, one can find the possible sequel being discussed in reliable sources...IE: MTV News The Sun Variety and one can find confirmation of signed cast in First Showing and the fact that the character of Dorothy Gale is not to appear (yet) in this sequel in Slashfilm and Sam Raimi has declined to direct in Bleeding Cool but as this sequel is still in pre-production and title is still unconfirmed, this possible sequel can be spoken of and sourced for now at Oz the Great and Powerful #Sequel. HOWEVER, this topic may well and sometime soon merit being an exception to WP:NFF... just not quite yet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oz the Great and Powerful already contains a section about a sequel, but it's very speculative (i.e. gossip or yet be decided) and the name isn't definite so a redirect doesn't make sense. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, too soon to have its own article. Also no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the notability guidelines for future films since this project is only in development. We use the start of filming as a threshold for the creation of a stand-alone article because it is at that point highly likely to be a topic of enduring notability. Before that threshold, production is not guaranteed, and nor is enduring notability when it is based on forward-looking news coverage, which routinely reports the (film) news of the day—different from the permanent approach that this encyclopedia takes. Per WP:CRYSTAL, discussion about a possible future film is proper to include in some form, and that is done in the "Sequel" section at Oz the Great and Powerful since discussion is mainly heightened based on that recently released blockbuster. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:27, 18 April 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kameni Nakamura[edit]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find in either English or Japanese was several iterations of his obituary (which mention little more than his death and that he was Japan's oldest man) and a handful of other trivial references about him becoming Japan's oldest man. Long-standing precedent is that simply being the oldest person in a country is not sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines and sustain an article, thus the extent of coverage (or lack thereof) is the issue here. Normally a redirect to a list might work, but he wasn't even a supercentenarian, so I'm not certain where he would be redirected to. Canadian Paul 20:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like some of the previous centenarian articles nominated, this is a WP:BIO1E case, and the person has not received a sufficient level of in-depth coverage to justify a self-standing biographical article. --DAJF (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation. It is true that we have deleted many bios of very old persons in the past two years. The consensus is that the mere fact of being the oldest person at some time in the past does not per se confer notability. A better biography could be created with better, translated sources. Have you notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan? Bearian (talk) 22:24, 23 April 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Vectis route 10[edit]

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

After the Deletion of Southern Vectis route 1 and other Southern Vectis routes which were supported by consensus this is a bulk deletion to debate the remaining lists. These are Non-notable bus routes, The articles are sourced to a number of of sources which are either primary or tangential to the route as a whole neither of which establish notability per the General notability guidleines which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any key information can be inserted into the Southern Vectis article but doesn't need its own sprawling article with an unsourced/unsourceable history. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles nominated under this reasoning are:

Delete per nom. Fail WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL.--Charles (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Anyone with sense would check the operators website, not WP! Davey2010 Talk 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the three Southern Vectis route articles, no evidence of significant coverage. Mergeor possibly keep Wightbus route 16; two of the sources are primarily about the route, but refer to it as "rail link", no mention of route number. A separate article may be unnecessary, if this is all the coverage that exists, but there's information that can be added to the Wightbus article. WP:NOTTRAVEL isn't relevant, as the information is not inherently unsuitable, it just lacks evidence of notability. "Check the operator's website" is also a poor reason as these routes are defunct; the articles also contain historical information that probably won't be found there. Peter James (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. People will want to do the the companies website to find relevant information and not Wikipedia which will show up first on most search engines. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason for deletion for multiple reasons. (a) People will also want to use musicians' and companies' websites to find relevant information, should we delete their articles? (b) The routes don't exist any more - Wikipedia mentions this, but this information isn't as easy to find on official sites (if they exist) as it's only in news archives. (c) We don't redirect to external sites, and have no control over external searches. (d) Search on Google for a current route with a Wikipedia article and there will usually be a more official site above Wikipedia in the results. Peter James (talk) 19:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per recent precedent: we have deleted bus route articles wholesale. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 22 April 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. Tone 20:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wightbus route 33[edit]

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

After the Deletion of Southern Vectis route 1 and other Southern Vectis routeswhich was supported by consensus this is a deletion to debate another list. This is a Non-notable bus route, The article is sourced to a number of of sources which are either primary or tangential to the route as a whole neither of which establish notability per the General notability guidleines which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any key information can be inserted into the Wightbus article but doesn't need its own sprawling article with an unsourced/unsourceable history.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Anyone with sense would check the operators website, not WP! Davey2010 Talk 21:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, sources are not independent of the subject. Peter James (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. People will want to do the the companies website to find relevant information and not Wikipedia which will show up first on most search engines. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 15:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per recent precedent: we have deleted bus route articles wholesale. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 22 April 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. WP:OR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co-shoring[edit]

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

Possible original research, no references, almost nothing on Google--File Éireann 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Falls under the category WP:NOTNEO. Tangurena (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Its a hellish stupid term I know, but I think it's real. If you do a search on G for co-sharing project development it throws up numerous companies brochures, blogs, support sites which use the term. Seems to be fairly new but now quite common. scope_creep (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Weak article. Vague unsourced woffle with no substantial content or background to it. It's not OR, just because there's no "research" to it.

As to NEO though, I've been working on co-shoring IT projects for about ten years. We could use an article on it, but it would be difficult to do one outside of OR. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's real enough, but someone will have to write an acceptable article first. DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 24 April 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

War of Words (Singers & Players album)[edit]

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

Unsourced affair. No evidence it ever made the charts. Fails WP:NALBUMS The Banner talk 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 3 April 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) 18:50, 8 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 19:53, 16 April 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. WP:CSD#A7 no assertion of significance or importance. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacoby Easox[edit]

The existance of this article is being challenged. If it must be deleted then discuss it here. JacobyEasox (talk) 19:43, 16 April 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 Singers & Players. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaps and Bounds[edit]

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

Unsourced affair. No evidence it ever made the charts. Fails WP:NALBUMS The Banner talk 20:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 April 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) 18:51, 8 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to band, no independent notability shown. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:26, 18 April 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overt-Kill[edit]

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

Lacks notability and lack reliable references 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this Google search appears to show plenty more RS'es than are currently in the article. Jclemens (talk) 04:07, 2 April 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) 19:05, 8 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 19:34, 16 April 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. Tone 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Cappon[edit]

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

Not notable. Joja lozzo 19:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. hasn't actually won any notable award. LibStar (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Awards won are not notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Please, re-check the article as i just restored to my last revision. He won 2006 and 2007 IPA awards while 2008 IPA award won by Bill Diodato as referenced here, also he won PX3 award. - Voidz (t·c) 20:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The PX3 award is just him on a list of over a thousand "honorable mentions". Hard to consider that a significant award. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~::* Okay, actual link added, please, check this and besides honorable mentions he actually won the award and thus listed in the PX3 Annual Book. -- Voidz (t·c) 04:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

A third place finish in the sky subcategory of the nature pro category of the Public Choice division of the PX3 awards, with the awesome prize of getting your name in a book! And there's a mere 300 winners on that page, and another 300 on the jury prize page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Voicz (talk · contribs) has been indef'd for spamming and sockpuppetry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:38, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just spam, not puppetry. Not that it makes a difference. - Precision Obsessed Nat Gertler (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam article, created by what is clearly a professional promoter, who has a history of creating promotional articles on non-notable subjects, and attempting to make them appear notable by bombardment with useless "references", sometimes even with fake references that don't even mention the subjects of the articles, but mention someone completely different with a similar name. In this case, all but two of the references do no more than include Cappon's name in a list, one of them has a one sentence mention, and the full and unabridged text of the other one is "Stephan Herve Cappon: Stephan Herve Cappon has not been scheduled to exhibit yet. Add your name to our mailing list and we will send you an invitation." Not a shred of evidence anywhere to suggest that the subject comes within a hundred miles of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam article on non-notable individual. Lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Awards are not significant at all. Fails all notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Spam article. Subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Not notable. -- Wikipedical (talk) 16:02, 20 April 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. It's clearly snowing Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wikipedia controversies[edit]

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

This list is the product of an off-wiki collaboration involving a number of users from Wikipediocracy, a fairly notorious anti-Wikipedia website. It was created by one Wikipediocracy user, Jayen466. Its development is being promoted with cash rewards (paid editing!) by something called "The Wikipediocracy Fund", doing business as SB Johnny, another Wikipediocracy user (see [3]). The page history shows that it has been heavily edited by various IP editors, very likely representing input from the banned users whom Wikipediocracy mainly serves. It is being promoted on Wikipediocracy by a long-term banned user, Thekohser. It suffers from two unsalvageable problems which require its deletion. First, it is inherently non-neutral, as the choice of what "controversies" to include is completely arbitrary. It seems to be intended as a "greatest hits" list for Wikipediocracy and its predecessor, Wikipedia Review, which Jayen466 has used as a referenced source despite its complete unreliability. Second and relatedly, it falls foul of notability requirements. A list topic "is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This is clearly not the case here, as the list is an entirely arbitrary choice selected by Wikipediocracy users who have played a direct role in some of the controversies - there is no suggestion in the article that the topic and the controversies listed have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", as WP:LISTN requires. It is little more than a cherry-picking of negative news stories from Wikipedia:Press coverage. The fundamental premise of this list is flawed; because of that it is unsalvageable and for that reason it should be deleted. Prioryman (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some people seem to think that I've raised the word "controversies" in the article title as an issue. I haven't. It's irrelevant. This is about NPOV in the contents and notability in the subject matter. Prioryman (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...Keep. In the rant above Prioryman focuses on issues which are completely irrelevant to deletion requirements. There are plenty of lists and articles with the word "controversy" in the title. The list satisfies notability requirement as much if not more than these kinds of lists on Wikipedia. It's not only NOT "uinsalvageable" it's actually pretty good to begin with (doesn't even NEED salvaging). Basically a bad faithed nom in pursuit of a grudge.Volunteer Marek 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point out where the contents of the list have been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", to meet the requirements of WP:LISTN? That's an absolutely central issue for deletion requirements. If no such sources exist (and they are not cited) the article has no reason to exist. Prioryman (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that you are misrepresenting WP:LISTN. Here's what it really says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. I've underlined the part you've left out, for some strange reason. "One accepted reason" means it is one of several possible reasons. It is a sufficient not a necessary condition. You've also, for some strange reason, left out this part There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. Incidentally I'm guessing it's this last part that is the loophole which allows many many many lists much more deserving of deletion to exist on Wikipedia. Why not go after those rather than pursuing petty grudges? Volunteer Marek 20:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are, in fact, misreading LISTN. The contents of the list don't have to be discussed as a group by the sources, the topic of the list does: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is only one substantial argument made by the nominator, which is related to his invocation of LISTN. It is obviously the case that this topic has been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Here are some:
- The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's Greatest Encyclopedia. Hyperion. 17 March 2009. ISBN 978-1-4013-0371-6. Retrieved 16 April 2013. (See Chapter 8; Crisis of Community and Chapter 9; Wikipedia Makes Waves)
- Wikipedia: A New Community of Practice?. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. 2009. ISBN 978-1-4094-8606-0. Retrieved 16 April 2013. (Chapter 13; Wikipedia and the Nature of Knowledge)
- Good faith collaboration. MIT Press. 2010. ISBN 978-0-262-01447-2. Retrieved 16 April 2013. (Chapters 5 and 7).

These are book sources only. There are many more in journals, but the ones I've provided are clearly enough to establish that the list subject meets the GNG. Perhaps the nominator would do well to read WP:BEFORE.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can books published in 2009 and 2010 cover controversies happening in 2011, 2012 and 2013? Do these books cover the controversies listed in the article? Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misreading LISTN. The sources discuss the nature of controversies involving Wikipedia. The fact that they discuss various controversies as a group establishes that the concept of Wikipedia controversies is itself notable. Once the concept is established as notable there can be a list article on it. Once there's a list article on it anything in the scope of the list can be included. It's not even necessary that the individual entries be notable: "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." However, each of the entries on this list has been shown to be notable through the use of reliable sources.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Wikipedia controversies" have been discussed in the media here, and in a closely-related way, here and here. As for precedent in Wikipedia lists, please see:

- List of controversial album art

- List of controversial video games

- List of controversial elections

- List of controversies involving the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

- Controversies involving the Indian Premier League

- Controversy and criticism of Big Brother (U.S.)

- Controversies in autism

- Boy Scouts of America membership controversies

- Controversies related to Vishwaroopam

Et cetera, et cetera. Prioryman should explain why he has elected to focus only on this list, yet none of the other similar lists and articles about controversies have irked him. Is it possible that Prioryman is an "involved party" who personally has it in for Wikipediocracy, and so this is a means of his personal revenge? Wikipedia is not a revenge platform. And this particular list is a clear keep. - 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (UTC).[reply]

Read what I said. I didn't say anything about the title being an issue. Prioryman (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Read what I said. You're finished here. - 2001:558:1400:10:3C3A:9659:834A:157E (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no relationship with WR or WO, but saw this mentioned on a noticeboard on my watchlist. First, the identities of individuals involved in editing this article is mostly irrelevant to this discussion. Second, the concerns about neutrality and arbitrariness deserve to be taken seriously, but in my opinion can be overcome through good-faith negotiation at the talk page. (From my perspective, the standard for inclusion seems fairly obvious and objective: any controversy substantially involving Wikipedia that gained notable mention in reliable, independent sources. Details can be worked out in Talk.) Third, what makes editor identity "mostly irrelevant" but not entirely so, in my opinion, is that the article and this AfD seem to be yet another venue for the ongoing WR/WO-related battles. That doesn't have much bearing on the suitability of the article for deletion in terms of content, but if the article is providing an "attractive nuisance" for some folks, perhaps it needs to be kept under close watch by admins not afraid to put out fires or issue sanctions. alanyst 18:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agreed to represent "the Wikipediocracy fund" and post to the Reward board because it's a very clear case of an effort that is good for both Wikipedians and Wikipedia's critics: both groups certainly agree that Wikipedia is important, and these "controversies" are certainly notable and frequently get press. Having an NPOV, well-annotated, and well-sourced list is the best way to inform readers about the topic, particularly bearing in mind that this page will almost undoubtedly be the first google result for searches on the topic, if it isn't already. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You plainly have a conflict of interest in the matter, as your fronting for this "Wikipediocracy Fund" is a textbook case of "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", as WP:COI puts it. If BP had put up a reward from the "Petroleum Fund" for editors to contribute to a list of articles describing controversies over global warming, you'd be able to hear the screaming about COI all the way from here to whatever fetid basement Wikipediocracy is being operated from. Prioryman (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can he have a conflict of interest if he hasn't edited the article? Nothing in WP:COI seems to apply to edits outside of article space. Am I missing something?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) Less heat, more light, if you please Prioryman? Consider stepping away from the discussion for a while to cool down and let others chime in. alanyst 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources on the concept, and plenty of reliable sources for events. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipediocracy an independent reliable source on its own activities? Huh what? Isn't the Wikipediocracy domain owned by the guy who is banned from Wikipedia for his paid editing shenanigins? I wonder what interests are going on there, then. Quite apart from that, Wikipediocracy would never be even a reliable source, never mind an independent one. It's the website that has one member of staff who comments on the tech industry while asserting that Cambridge is a tech "backwater" (see Silicon Fen), and another member of staff who comments on the NHS while asserting that a Surgical Registrar is an office worker (see Surgical Registrar). I'm quite attracted to the idea of encyclopedias being written by subject matter experts qualified in the field they're writing on, rather than by Randy from Boise, but this lot are really the opposite extreme to that vision. If they ever want to be taken seriously as a source, they should write about things they actually know about (whatever that may be). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets notability requirements, and other than that, the nom consist of little more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT - Alison ^❤ 19:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User_talk:Alison. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep essentially per alanyst. Taking away the commentary about WR/WO role in editing this article, which is not relevant to the deletion discussion, the nominator raises two substantive concerns. The first can be addressed by defining nonarbitrary threshholds, and the 2nd arises from a misunderstanding. Now as far as editorial practice, the criterion for inclusion and sourcing should not be mention on a discussion site - it is not a RS. However, that seems to be being taken care of through editing and hence doesn't need to be discussed here. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any evidence of coverage from sources that are chronologically independent of the subject? Any books? Any academic journals? Wikipedia is not the newspaper, and enforcement of that provision means that we need non-news coverage for the controversies in question, regardless of the WP:LISTN question. Nyttend (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general subject matter has been covered in the RS listed above. This is clearly notable, and should not be deleted merely because it reflects unfavorably on Wikipedia. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appropriate, notable, objective, useful, interesting and, frankly, awesome. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 19:58, 16 April 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:INeverCry under criterion G11. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OMICS Group Conferences[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and any other standard -- at best, only one reference in use meets WP:RS, and since the article has apparently been produced by people associated with the company we can reasonably anticipate that everything available has been used. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge with OMICS Publishing Group. The conferences could fit nicely as a section but don't need a whole article. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- article was deleted under G11; I used twinkle to nominate it and that edit went through even though it had already been put for speedy deletion. This AfD can be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:28, 16 April 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:Excirial per CSD G7. (Non-admin closure.) Sideways713 (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aromatherapy Thymes Magazine[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY. No significant gnews hits, claim of notability in the article are a Mr. Magazine listing on a top 30 new magazines of 2007 - Mr. Magazine is a self-published website, and magazine did not make it into the top 5 of that list; an aromoatherapy blog entry that notes the magazine's launch, and one interview with the magazine (???) on an aromatherapy blog, with two paragraphs that aren't the magazine talking about itself... one of which is a statement that the journal is out of business. I'm not finding ghits that add significance. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 16 April 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Sheharyar Mirza (singer)[edit]

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

This article appears to be an elaborately strung together hoax. The links provided as sources do not lead to articles referencing this supposed singer. The BBC links, Times of India link, and several other working links are to articles about a singer named Imran Kahn, but I can find no source linking any King Sheharyar Mirza to any Imran Kahn, so there is no evidence that they refer to the subject of the article in any way. The remaining links are 404 errors. The image presented as an album cover is for an album that does not appear to exist in the real world, but instead mimics this actual Imran Kahn album. bd2412 T 15:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Action taken - Hoax tag placed at top of article. This adds it to Category:Wikipedia suspected hoax articles. If the result if this AFD is "NOT a hoax" then remove the hoax template as soon as it's proven real. If the result of this AFD is "inconclusive" consider keeping the "hoax" template depending on whether the evidence weighs toward "probably a hoax" or "probably not a hoax." Obviously, if the result is DELETE then it's moot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action taken: As this used to be on a user's "main" page, its talk page also used to be the user's talk page. I have removed the user-related content and requested that the old versions that contained only user-related discussion be moved back to the user talk page's history. I have also requested that the one version (by me) that contained both user- and article-related text be revdeleted as redundant and potentially confusing. If the result is DELETE please do not delete the talk page until the history-move request has been acted on. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence this article is based on reality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. The article's structures is taken from the Imran Khan (singer) article. FallingGravity (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The references don't check out. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attention required: An anonymous editor removed the AFD template from this article. I restored it about 3 hours later. Please monitor this article and, should it happen again, consider requesting semi-protection for the duration of this discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, elaborated hoax. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and no evidence that the person really exists. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having waded through dozens of empty or single-post blogs, Myspace pages, and similar, set up for this "artist", I can only conclude that the person might exist, but there is definitely no sign of notability. And the information in the article appears to be fake. Wishful thinking from somebody who would like to be a star, I suspect. --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. Elaborate hoaxes like this one are always entertaining, but it has to go. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator action required upon close of this discussion: The album cover used in the article qualifies as fair use (see the image's talk page) but it is too high of a resolution. Should the result of this be "keep" then this album cover art will need to be re-uploaded in a low-resolution version and the high-resolution version(s) deleted. Of course, if the result of this discussion is "delete" then the image gets deleted as well. The duplicate versions of this file have been nominated for speedy deletion as duplicates and the duplicate at the Commons has been nominated for deletion as a non-free image. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information: The page under review is now semi-protected until 00:00, April 25, 2013. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:15, 23 April 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. Tone 20:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Makengo[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that there were sources on google news. These are routine coverage insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason.

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all four - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Please note that they were added after the delete !vote by GiantSnowman above. 19:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete all per nom. – Michael (talk) 17:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:19, 18 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance realization[edit]

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

Non-notable theory of meaning which has a very small footprint in the literature. I don't think the term is entirely newly coined, but the couple of really solid hits are to papers by John Vervaeke (see above), and the principal hit [4] was only published last year. Maybe later. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how notability of a theory is determined? I just discovered the pages on relevance and relevance theory and suggest merging this article with those instead of outright deletion. I can also do a more thorough account of the discourse which spans over a decade and other researchers (like Jerry Fodor) a bit later. I'm new so I don't know if I can just go ahead and propose a merger or...? Thanks! --RT Wolf (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Relevance realization" just seems to be John Vervaeke's name for an existing idea/theory. --RT Wolf (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little more than minimally sourced babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thoughts on merger with relevance in teh cog sci section and relevance theory? RT Wolf (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here worth merging, is there? If you feel there is, feel free to add it to that article and see how it fares there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not merge: Sources fall far short of the mark for establishing notability. Very little about this in the literature. The only solid source was published lasrt year, and still hasn't generated enough response so that we can assign it any weight. Too little to even justify a merge. I couldn't find anything that was sourced and worth saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 19 April 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. Tone 20:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

InoReader[edit]

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

Very little information and notability not established $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:GNG and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Captain Conundrum (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking 3rd party references to establish notability; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage for this software which was apparently released last month. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:20, 18 April 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. Tone 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

100 Great Black Britons[edit]

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

I don't think it's notable enough plus quite a few of the people in the list are only debatably Black Eopsid (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why I don't think it's notable: The whole article is based off what seems like one press release which was talked about in the papers around that time and then promptly forgotten although they did make a website based on the same concept. So it's basically an article based off one website (and quite an unpopular one at that looking at Alexa.com's statistics). Eopsid (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list written by a non-notable person on a non-notable website. The Guardian's coverage is routine, and the NY Times source shows that this list is, patently, a load of rubbish (no, this isn't a racist jibe, but "The other 99 were scarcely much better known, though they included, on the basis of questionable evidence, a few long-dead Britons (like Elizabeth Barrett Browning) who would no doubt have been surprised to hear that they were black.", plus other things, kinda suggests that), and appears to be a press release by a book author for something else anyway - not really very reliable, even if it is hosted by the NY Times. There is also no sustained coverage whatsoever, just random things in conjunction with a particular story. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The accuracy of the list as far as who is or isn't black is completely beside the point, as the article is about the list (or the website that hosts it) as a document or work, and there are plenty of notable works that are complete rubbish factually. And so we can (and should) deal with this simply by judging the notability of the list (or website) itself, keeping WP:NOTNEWS in mind.
If the article is kept, the list itself should be removed, as the list is copyrighted as an author's creative selection and arrangement (who is included and in what order is subjective) rather than uncopyrightable fact. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I nuked the copyvio list. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The whole thing is based on one NN person's POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 22 April 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Vervaeke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An academic whose lectures enjoy some popularity and who has some trace in the literature. What I cannot find, however, is any discussion of him. here doesn't seem to be enough out there to write more than what would be found in a faculty directory. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I started the page so can be blamed for whatever's wrong with it. :p What do you mean by a discussion of him? Do you mean personal life info, or interviews, or profiles on him? Cheers! --RT Wolf (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any of the above. We need someone else to say "Vervaeke's theory of 'X' was of signal importance in our understanding of 'Y'", that sort of thing. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 8 is not really enough in a fairly popular field. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep because he's an important professor at one of the top 20 institutions on the planet. He teaches 4 out of the required 8 courses in the only Buddhist psychology program in North America, and teaches the introductory and higher-level courses in the cognitive science program, too, as well as teaching in the psychology department. None of these courses are taught from a textbook. Basically he's central to two programs at UofT that would be crippled without him, and has served as the Associate Director for the Cognitive Science program. Though his main impact has been at UofT he also teaches at York University so he's had an impact on multiple institutions of higher education. -- RT Wolf (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every professor's teaching is assessed, largely subjectively. This was basically the argument made by David Eppstein in the first Afd of this article. Agricola44 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Xxan. Teaching, while a noble and honorable profession, is not one of those things that automatically merit notability. There appears to be no serious grounds for notability aside from WP:PROF, and there he falls below our standards for psychologists. Reasonable people might choose not to believe that Toronto is one of the 20 most important institutions on the planet. Ray^Talk 22:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Low h-index means that the sources will have to clearly demonstrate extraordinary accomplishments in the field to meet the requirements of WP:PROF. The sources provided fall far short of this. WP:PROF is the only possible guideline that this individual could have met. The material on the rest of his life is scanty and does not contribute to notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows citation count list of 14, 9, 8, 4, 0, 0...Add to this that he is not the corresponding author on any of the cited papers and that he is ~~a junior~~ an adjunct faculty member, and WP:TOOSOON seems spot on. Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I don't see a reason to change my delete opinion for the first AfD. The sources are different this time around, but not of any higher quality. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:57, 23 April 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. There's clearly a snowball here and the four previous declines at AFC essentially make this a bad faith submission anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates of the Caribbean timeline[edit]

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

Article was declined at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pirates of the Caribbean timeline for a good reason multiple times... mabdul 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC) mabdul 13:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Badly sourced, the synthesis of which together is textbook original research. I don't think you meant to link that AfC submission, since Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pirates of the Caribbean timeline doesn't seem to have been reviewed, let alone declined, and doesn't seem to be in the deletion log. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timeline of Pirates of the Caribbean (Film Series) - declined four times. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 14:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as synthesis of historical events and fictional events. I could see potential in the films being assessed for historically accurate backgrounds, but per the guidelines at WP:FILMHIST, this needs to be done with reliable sources. A timeline approach is not the right approach at all. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--and he had to go live with it anyway. Then there's the RfA; this editor is hard of hearing. Metaphorically speaking. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inappropriate mix of original research and unreliable sources. Bencherlite ^Talk 14:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps there is a wiki devoted to PotC which would welcome such a submission. I encourage the author to find that site, but - as others have said - we do not need this synthesis of history and fiction on Wikipedia. LadyofShalott 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is indeed a place for this - at at the Pirates of the Caribbean wiki. bd2412 T 15:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Delete per User:BD2412, There's sites for this & it's certainly not here! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Synthesis of events, and possible original research. Zappa O Mati 01:55, 17 April 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chanta Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Poorly sourced blp with no real claim to notability. Sourcing is a mix of primary and blogs. Just being in Playboy does not make notable. Publishing a book does not make notable. Being a member of a website does not make notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she is notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 16:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:ITSNOTABLE Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the relevant guidelines for people in her fields of employment.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete closest thing to a claim of notability is assertion of having posed for Playboy, which isn't sourced and wouldn't necessarily be instant notability even if true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Struggling to find good independent sources besides a passing Dan Savage mention of her book.Doctorhawkes (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of genuinely independent sourcing to demonstrate notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:34, 21 April 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 by Deb, non admin closure hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols}

Ravi Wuyyuru[edit]

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

Poorly started article with no references or categories. No clear notability. Kumioko (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In concurrence with Kumioko, the article is poorly written and lacks reference, effort and information - merely a set of supposed achievements. 92.19.219.41 (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:FILMMAKER. Better yet Speedy delete under A7. —teb728 t c 11:32, 16 April 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. There is plenty of coverage and the "delete" !voters have not been able to refute it successfully. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Burnat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Iyad Burnat

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

not notable, no significant RS, poorly sourced, probably WP:BLP1E and WP:NPF Soosim (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User:Soosim hasn't bothered to explain on the talk page which of the 14-15 separate sources he considers not to be WP:RS. (I also see reliable sources that can be added from a search of his name in this news archive search.) Sooism has complained about reverts of a vandal who is one or more of the several active in the Israel-Palestine debate being against 1RR, but let's not encourage vandalism, please. I'm sure the article needs work. But there is no reason to delete it. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are WP:RS I just put on the talk page of the article that describe his activities and/or quote him. BBC 2005 - Christian Science Monitor Sept 2007 - Washington Times Sept 2007 - Israel National News March 2010 - YnetNews April 2010 - Maan News Dec 2010 - LA Times Dec 2010 - Spokesman Review Jan 2013. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you put in all of those RS, there won't be much of an article beyond his role in the protests.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did and there was lots of good stuff. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear notable. Point of fact, many of the details in this article, such as info about the weekly protests and other individuals, are completely irrelevant to Burnat. There is also a striking lack of RS for a lot of the key claims in the opening, and I'm not sure about how reliable a lot of the sources used are as it is. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Mr. Burnat is a key figure in the Bil'in popular movement resisting the separation wall, and Bil'in is currently the most explosive and important flashpoint along the path of the wall. In fact, if the Palestinian-Israeli-international struggle against the wall as a whole has a microcosm, it is most certainly Bil'in. Burnat has been the subject of minor diplomatic incidents involving the U.S. and Jordan and organizations within those countries, and he is certainly on the radars of both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government. He is mentioned in articles from several distinguished media outlets including Ha'aretz, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Guardian, to name but a few that are cited on his current Wikipedia page. Additionally, those are merely some of the available English-language sources. Expanding the sources to those in Hebrew and Arabic especially would yield many more mentions from a wide array of source types. Lastly, and least important, he's a direct relation to the filmmaker of one of the most talked-about documentaries of the past year, and said documentary revolved much around the same struggle Iyad is involved in. As such, WP:NOTE does not seem to be a problem with Iyad Burnat. As the article stands right now, the sourcing appears adequate in terms of both reliability and quantity, though I know that much more could be added. Popular, nonviolent struggle by Palestinians has never been headline-making news on the front pages of top Western newspapers (although because of some movements, the Bil'in struggle which Mr. Burnat is linked to in particular, this has recently been changing and nonviolent Palestinian resistance is getting more coverage in more disparate outlets), so the fact that he has any mention at all in papers like CS Monitor and the Guardian is somewhat remarkable. As to the other two specific charges made by Soosim, that Burnat's article is "probably WP:BLP1E and WP:NPF", WP:BLP1E simply doesn't apply. Bil'in's popular resistance against the wall is an ongoing phenomenon, not a single event. Single events have certainly occurred within the framework of the weekly Friday demonstrations and other activities linked to activism in Bil'in, such as the deaths of Bassem Abu Rahmeh and Jawaher Abu Rahmeh, but it's plainly inaccurate to refer to the culmination of Iyad's work as a "single event". As far as WP:NPF is concerned, NPF doesn't seem to be related to the question of whether or not someone is "relatively [known]" enough to warrant an article, but rather to the issue of, when one is faced with an article on a person who's living and "relatively unknown", the editor should be careful not to pad out the article with information that is 1) not worthy of an encyclopedia and 2) raises privacy issues for the person in question, simply to make the article longer. In any case, in such a reading of WP:NPF, it clearly holds no relevance to this AfD. In summary, I find that Iyad Burnat is definitely notable enough to warrant an article, many reliable sources are available and currently incorporated into the article, whose sourcing is adequate, and that there are no issues here with either WP:BLP1E or WP:NPF. I see no acceptable reason to delete this article. Direct action (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Bil'in protests are a notable phenomenon and if Burnat is one of the top leaders of that movement that would also make him notable. I don't see a real case on why the subject of this article would be considered otherwise. That being said, the article needs improvement, both in sources and neutrality. Right off the bat, the heading "Police harassment" needs to be changed per NPOV. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having spent some time looking at reliable source coverage and trying to add content and sources, the subject does appear to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as far as I can tell. There are ~17k ghits so it's not possible know to know exactly what information is available at this stage without going through the entire dataset, but the RS based evidence that I have seen does indicate that Iyad Burnat has been "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and that they have "made a widely recognized contribution". Some of this information has been added. Some of it has been removed. Given the nature of the WP:ARBPIA topic area and the weak constraints in place to deal with editing that is based on politics rather than policy, I don't think it is going be possible in practice to build this article without contributions being degraded. Deleting the article would result in a net reduction of editing in ARBPIA that is inconsistent with policy and Wikipedia's objectives, so I favor deleting it on that basis. I can imagine that some may not see this as a valid reason for deletion but I believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia. The article can be written when problems within ARBPIA have been resolved. It may take many years to fix the problems. An article about Iyad Burnat can wait until then. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. You favor deleting the article because doing so "would result in a net reduction of editing in ARBPIA that is inconsistent with policy and Wikipedia's objectives". Are you saying that, were the article to stand on Wikipedia, it would exist as one more battleground in the ARBPIA, which is a strike against keeping the article in the first place, and that since the article's subject falls into ARBPIA's purview, it's susceptible to bad editing ("editing... inconsistent with policy and Wikipedia's objectives"), and that these together warrant the article's deletion? Thus, that the encyclopedic value that an article on Iyad Burnat would contribute to Wikipedia (as opposed to having no such article) is outweighed by the possibility that the article, by simply existing, would attract bad editing and further arbitration requests? Am I way off? Because if not, then it seems as if your argument could be extended to literally any article on Israel and Palestine, and function as a case for the deletion of all Israel/Palestine-related content on Wikipedia. Not to mention that this argument could be used to block the continued existence of all newly-created Israel/Palestine-related articles, which by the fact of their existence represent an opportunity for someone to bring them to ARBPIA. In addition, it opens the door for anyone who wants to see the removal of an article, or even all the articles surrounding a particular subject, to bog down the encyclopedia's functionality by inundating the article with bad editing and arbitration requests. It seems like you're saying that there shouldn't be any new Israel/Palestine articles until there are no longer any issues being debated in ARBPIA, and that it would benefit the Wikipedia project as a whole to remove as many Israel/Palestine articles as possible so as to decrease the congestion in ARBPIA. This is a very strange position to take in my view, so I'd not be surprised if I'm interpreting your argument completely incorrectly, ergo the request for clarification. Direct action (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't interpreting my argument completely incorrectly, but I probably wasn't specific enough and this probably isn't the place to discuss the wider scale aspects. I will say though that I would fully support there being no new Arab/Iran/Israel conflict related articles until problems in ARBPIA have been resolved, something that would require removing editors, setting very strict topic area entry requirements and editing constraints, and if I had my way, no longer allowing editing under the cover of anonymity, things that are not going to happen tomorrow and may never happen. Having edited in the topic area for over 5 years, made perhaps ~15k edits in ARBPIA, a large proportion of them to fix damage by editors and sockpuppets who are unable or unwilling to follow policy, I have come to the conclusion that there are some things Wikipedia can't do, so it should stop pretending it can and focus efforts on things it can do. Much of the time it doesn't matter very much but sometimes it does, particularly when it involves a living human being. Wikipedia can't ensure that articles about people like Iyad Burnat, a living person, comply with WP:BLP, all other policies and are as good as they can possibly be. It can't prevent extremist supporters of Israel from making vile attacks on the subject as has already happened many times for the article. It can't protect the article from sockpuppets of users who have had their editing privileges revoked because they present a serious risk to content. It can't prevent people whose priorities are inconsistent with Wikipedia's from exploiting the article as a weapon in an information war, something I regard as completely unethical. It can't prevent damage by people (whether in good or bad faith makes no difference) who are not able to make rational policy based content decisions because of their personal views or connection to the conflict. It can't even protect editors who are here to build an encyclopedia based on policy, and there are almost none of those in ARBPIA, from having to deal with editors whose allegiance to things outside of Wikipedia take priority over Wikipedia's content rules. No one should have to collaborate with editors whose priorities are different from Wikipedia's, ever. But most of all, it can't protect the subject of the article, and that means, at least for me, that it is better to delete the article on a 'do no harm' basis. An alternative would be to permanently fully protect the article so that every single edit has to be explained on the talk page using policy based arguments and gain consensus before it is implemented by an admin. I would like to see far more use of full protection in ARBPIA to force people to slow down and justify their proposed changes using rational policy/evidence based arguments that can be scrutinized and evaluated. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Insert]I agree there are problems but let's discuss at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration for starters with more appropriate forum later. (Or other ideas?) At this point my problem is more with one or two edit warring/disruptive editors who I'd like to see banned from the topic at least for a while. (But of course we're afraid to bring anyone to WP:ARBPIA because we're afraid of being banned even if we are only 5% as bad as the offender.

CarolMooreDC🗽 18:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added more WP:RS info and restructured it slightly so it more than passes muster. Bottom line, Wikipedia doesn't don't allow numbers of editors with strong POVs out to AfD any article they don't like to get their way. I have found Wikipedia policies adequate for dealing with them so far, though it does take far more effort than the zero bucks I'm getting paid for it is worth. CarolMooreDC🗽 02:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it may pass gas, but not muster, unless it is muster gas. carol - do you have "strong POVs"? just curious. and really? you don't get paid for this? interesting. Soosim (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/ Merge: The subject is notable enough, there are many apparently bad sources in the article, but there is Ynet and NYT that mention him directly as a key element of the story. Sure he isn't Yaseer Arafat, but notable enough per our guidelines. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry the NYT story was about his brother. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven’t seen any specific discussion of RS on the talk page, except for Mondoweiss which sometimes is considered RS; I haven’t looked at the deleted use to further discuss it. However, The Palestine Center, The Advertiser-Tribune, Washington Times, The Christian Science Monitor, Haaretz, Ynet News, Ma'an News Agency, Los Angeles Times, and perhaps a couple other, all together have quite a bit of information, the most important of which probably can fill in any important blanks from sources not considered WP:RS currently. I have already filled in some of that info and the article is a lot better than when originally listed here. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:01, 22 April 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. No agreement on whether he has independent notability apart from dEUS. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Trouvé[edit]

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

More than eight years old and still no independent sources. No obvious in depth coverage in independent sources in google. Articles in four parallel language wikipedias, but none of them appear to have any additional refs. The edit removing the PROD contained the link http://www.lalibre.be/societe/voyage/article/177975/petit-trouve-de-l-anvers-alternatif.html which is in French, so I can't really evaluate it. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added, apart from the link in my edit summary, some more links at the talk page of the article ([5]2 minutes before this AfD, so we probably crossed each other). These are major media (general or music specific) from Wallonia, Flanders and the Netherlands, where Rudy Trouvé is the main subject of the coverage. They are in French and Dutch, but they are more than sufficient to keep this. Being a full member of some notable bands (mainly dEUS and Dead Man Ray) and having a split album with a major international musician like Lou Barlow should be sufficient reasons to keep this as well. Fram (talk) 11:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak any of the languages of those sources, so I'm not in a position to evaluate them against WP:Notability (music). Are you sure dEUS and Dead Man Ray are notable? One doesn't point to a music article and one points to a wikipedia article with a single reference whose URL doesn't work for me. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deus (band). Yes, they're definitely notable, as are Dead Man Ray - judging notability solely by looking at a Wikipedia article is not a good idea. Other projects that Trouve has been involved in are also notable, e.g. split album with Lou Barlow, Pawlovski, Trouve and Ward. See also [6], [7], [8], [9]. --Michig (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'd also add than he is the subject of articles in 4 other languages, which presumably are not flagged for deletion...---Brigade Piron (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough coverage around to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO through in-depth coverage in reliable sources, as demonstrated above. — sparklism ^hey! 10:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The question is whether Trouvé is independently notable apart from the associated bands that are. Between the sources mentioned above and my own search, he isn't. The Gazet van Antwerpen is an announcement, hardly an article; the Urbanmag doesn't appear to be a RS based on their info page (though it would be the one source that appears to give Trouvé his own article); Kwadratuur appears somewhat more reliable, but posts no information on editorial oversight (Brussel Nieuws looks okay). In addition to my own search, there isn't more than a patchwork of album reviews available, and no single secondary, reliable source that focuses on his work as a notable endeavor. None of his solo or split albums have any major accolades, or more than scattered reviews of varying notability—they hardly give enough support for writing an encyclopedia article. So he is known for being in dEUS and not his outside career (as of now). I don't see how he passes WP:ANYBIO or WP:MUSICBIO. czar · · 14:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the "La libre belgique" source given above, which focuses solely on him and starts with "Rudy Trouvé, musicien emblématique de la métropole", which would make him meet WP:BAND #7; and the links to VPRO, Radio 1 and Studio Brussel, which would all make him meet WP:BAND #12? Your "delete" seems to focus solely on the least important sources, while ignoring the most important ones. Please see Talk:Rudy Trouvé for these links, as indicated above. Fram (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the talk page. My above comments were for the sources mentioned on this page, and I responded on the talk page for the sources mentioned on that page:

Ref1 is good, ref3 is unreliable (per their FAQ page), and ref4 glows suspiciously because it's written by volunteer editors (though VPRO appears more reputable on the whole). And the quote from Oor (ref5) actually expands to "Als we denken aan belangrijke figuren in de Belgische popscene, denken we natuurlijk aan Tom Barman en Stef Kamil Carlens. Maar vergeet Rudy Trouvé niet." (the important Belgian pop figures are Barman and Carlens, Trouvé is usually forgotten). Some of these are good finds, but with the unreliable sources aside, the argument is that Trouvé is not independently notable with enough reliable sources to support an entire encyclopedia article.
— User:Czar 15:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

So no fit for #7, and #12 is a stretch because Trouvé is on air but not the featured subject of the Radio 1 eight-minute clip (ref2). Even with the decent La Libre praise (ref1), it's a single source against a wanting for reliable claims of notability. czar · · 15:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My response from the talk page: Your translation of the Oor quote is wrong. It's not "Trouvé is usually forgotten" but "But don't forget Rudy Trouvé." This is of course nearly the opposite meaning of what you made of it. So even ignoring Ref 3 and 4, we have Refs 1, 2 and 5, plus his actual contributions to two notable bands and a split album with another very notable musician. Fram (talk) 07:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with your translation, the point was that Trouvé is not as renowned as Barman and Carlens. He is only discussed in the capacity of being a former dEUS member, and not his own notable work. "His actual contributions to two notable bands" doesn't matter if notability is not inherited, and his split album with someone notable also doesn't matter if there is zero critical response to it (in fact, it says the opposite). I'm not arguing that he isn't interesting, just that the refs don't support his status as an independently notable cultural figure. Ref5 (Oor), like the Gazet van Antwerpen, is an announcement or blurb, not GNG significant coverage. (And Ref2, the Radio 1 dual interview, isn't exactly strong for him either.) From the Brussel Nieuws source, I think of this: "En dan is er een boutade die zegt dat Rudy Trouvé uit een project stapt wanneer het al te succesvol dreigt te worden." I looked for more sources, but I think we're stretching too far. I can only see inherited notability from dEUS and not independent notability for his art or other band involvement from these discussed examples. czar · · 15:06, 24 April 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. Tone 21:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One Note Stand[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage independent of their university in order to show notability as a musical group. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:NBAND. Deadbeef (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG--GrapedApe (talk) 01:08, 17 April 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. Tone 21:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taekwondoscotland[edit]

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

This article has been without reliable sources since its creation, and the unreferenced tag has remained for about a year. I found a passing mention of the existence of the sport in Scotland in two news articles, but nothing about this organization itself. Fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTCRIT. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't appear independently notable, but unsure if we can do anything to avoid deletion. If it's a branch of British Taekwondo Control Board, it could be merged there - but that article doesn't have any independent refs either. It may be possible to include some of this in a more general article on Taekwondo or martial arts generally in Scotland or the UK. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this organization. Mentioning associations does not establish notability because of WP:NOTINHERITED.Mdtemp (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:09, 21 April 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 Solitaire. Anything that's not in Solitaire worth merging can be done so from the history, as long as it's attributed. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 07:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patience (game)[edit]

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

WP:CONTENTFORK of solitaire. Originally was a redirect to the article. Games are identical so the difference in nomenclature can simply moved from this article to solitaire. Otherwise not notable. Curb Chain (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect again to Solitaire. The given references in the article can only prove that the game exists, which is not a good reason why the article should be kept. smtchahal^(talk) 07:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to solitaire. Terms are too similar in meaning to merit 2 articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow, rather unbelievable how bad the article solitaire is. We've clearly got a content fork situation here; not so such which should be the redirect, however. Carrite (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with solitaire as a content fork. I talked myself into it. This is the better piece and should be the bulk of the content. Solitaire should be the name of the article. Now, who wants to do the encyclopedia a solid by doing the actual work??? Carrite (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"patience" in the context of card games is synonymous to solitaire. The article should not have been made when it was redirecting to that article.Curb Chain (talk) 13:10, 18 April 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. Tone 21:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hona Tha Pyaar[edit]

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

Song not notable by any notable source. Gaurav Pruthi ^talk 06:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable song; no coverage in any reliable sources. smtchahal^(talk) 06:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:21, 18 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Zellar[edit]

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

No indication of notability. The Daily Page seems the best source; other than that, we just have blogs and some local Twin Cities coverage. That's not enough to justify an article. No additional sources found via Google. Huon (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I'm still not overly impressed by the sources, many of which mention Zellar only in passing, but he scrapes by WP:BIO. Many thanks to Mkdw for his work. Huon (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Also looks like it may be a promotional piece just meant to link to all his books for some reason. Aside from that, no sources found that establish notability. gwickwire^talk_editing 06:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets all things now imo, thanks Mkdw :D gwickwire^talk_editing 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is not really in a promotional tone (except for the external links, which can be removed), but notability seems to be the issue. smtchahal^(talk) 06:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Voting to keep the article instead, per Mkdw. The article still has some issues, but they're not enough to get the article deleted. smtchahal^(talk) 08:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and NOTE: I have done a major rework of the article since the above comments and nominations; addressed the tone and promotional element of the article, added reliable sources, and discovered some very important facts that would make this person notable:

The Coen brothers film A Serious Man (nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture) was based off his book Suburban World: The Norling Photographs
One of his books is the recipient of an award by D&AD, a British based photography society
One of his works was selected by TIME in their 2011 selections for photography books.
Has written several professionally published books.

Collectively, the above when totalled against WP:AUTHOR, I think in my own opinion, that the article should be kept. There appears to be more room for the article to be improved upon, but now the article should be kept and remaining problems are editorial in nature. Mkdw ^talk 08:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Person is not so well known. 100.45.66.2 (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC) — 100.45.66.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You mean aside from the sources? WP:UNKNOWNHERE Mkdw ^talk 19:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the subject himself, based on his rationale and the conversation he previously had with helpers on IRC. gwickwire^talk_editing 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Possibly notable, but the article is so greatly exaggerated as to be promotional, and needs rewriting from scratch. The primary basis for notability would be the relationship with the film, but the actual quote from the Coen's is not that the film was based on Zeller's book, but that "the look of "A Serious Man" is based partly on the Brad Zellar book 'Suburban World: The Norling Photographs,'" That's much less in the way of significance. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, WP:GNG could be argued to be met here, hence the keeps. This was AfDed before a major rewrite, so.. gwickwire^talk_editing 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised at this comment DGG. You've cited a promotional tone to the article as being a problem, specifically it's wording used to claim it's relation to the Coen film, BUT you've pointed out something as the basis of your argument that the article does not say. In fact, it actually says how you think it should be worded: "partly based on"... By the way, I rewrote the article entirely and removed the promotional elements in the article. It is no different than any GA or FA article when it talks about his books and work; e.g. development and limited reception. There are no terms puffing the piece that aren't cited or unjustified except for the mistaken way how you think the article relates his book to the film. I needn't remind you, but WP:AUTHOR has several criteria and he's 4/4 on them: WP:SIGCOV, award, many times published, work was selected in TIME, and a major film was partly based off his book. Again, a bit shocked DGG because usually you're so thorough, and it's not like you to misread the actual text and wording of an article; it almost seems like you looked at the article prior to the rewrite I did and used the stuck out !votes as your basis. Mkdw ^talk 08:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For clarity sake, the article looked like this as a stub at the time of nomination and I rewrote the article to bring it in line with other articles about authors. It literally went from 200 words to 2,000. Mkdw ^talk 07:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The film was not based on the book. The appearance of the film was based on the photographs of the book. "based on" means that the story of the work was used, not just some aspects of the visual appearance. I would certainly be willing to consider removing the material and keeping the article, but you're arguing that the minimal relevance is the major importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the film was the main claim to notability; it makes several. The most important was the WP:SIGCOV the writer has received. This is clearly demonstrated in the article. One editing stylistic choice of a few words being the basis of an entire delete argument (overriding WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR) as "so greatly exaggerated as to be promotion it needs rewriting from scratch" is not reasonable when the fix took less than 10 characters to change in the diff. I am agreeable to the changes and it took no where close to a rewrite from scratch. In my own opinion, you should have !voted keep for notability, but brought up the inaccuracy as an improvement needed. Deleting a 900 word article because one source is misquoted but has a plethora reliable sources, published words, award winner, etc. I cannot see justifying delete over an editorial concern. Mkdw ^talk 23:20, 24 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shanghai Metals Market[edit]

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

Chinese market research company, no third-party references, the article is promotional in nature. See also the former article metal.com, whose VfD I have closed as a redirect to the article about the company. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - same rationale as my nomination for Metal.com: lack of coverage in reliable sources. Note that if this article is deleted, Metal.com should be deleted as well. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only question here should be notability. If the article is an advert and needs a fundamental rewrite to be acceptable, it should be deleted per G11. If it doesn't require a fundamental rewrite, being advertorial doesn't justify deletion of a notable subject. The claims made in this article and the metal.com article (before it was deleted), suggest strong notability. A Google News search and a Google News Archive search show pages and pages of article about Shanghai Metals Market and articles that quote employees of Shanghai Metals Market, suggesting that just being a higher-up or expert in the company makes your opinion notable. As for the advertorial content, I've removed it all (in my opinion). I see no reason to delete this article at this time. OlYeller21^Talktome 13:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However, the sources are sources that quote the SMM, not actually about the SMM. Even if a company/person is an expert on something, if he/she/it is not the subject of enough significant, reliable coverage, then he/she/it still fails WP:GNG. While the news reports do look promising, unfortunately, they do not amount to significant coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also have trouble finding article about the New York Stock Exchange, itself, even though it has been a often discussed subject in the news over the last 5 years. When there are literally hundreds of sources that use SMM as a reliable primary source, should we ignore that? Do we ignore that Bloomberg L.P., The Globe and Mail, MarketWatch, Shanghai Daily, Business Week, Puls Biznesu, Telemarksavisa, Focus, Reuters, Prensa, China Daily and RBC TV all use SMM as a reliable source of information? Those are some major news sources from all over the world. That seems sort of silly to me. There are cases where something is so common that it's not covered on its own. OlYeller21^Talktome 04:14, 2 April 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) 19:12, 8 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though the article has some third-party references and they are from reliable sources (per OlYeller21), I feel the topic's notability is still an issue. smtchahal^(talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm also not finding the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required to satisfy WP:GNG. However, given the important role that this company plays in the Chinese commodity market and the number of other media sources that regularly quote the SMM, I find this apparent lack of notability a bit surprising. Perhaps significant, reliable, coverage exists in Chinese language sources? (Does the Chinese Wikipedia have an article on this company?) If that avenue fails to yield results, a redirect and merge of a couple summarized sentences to Metal prices may be appropriate. --Mike Agricola (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability standards need to be applied with judgement. A company that supplies the standard figures used on an important market is notable by any rational standpoint, and being over-particular about the GNG doesn ot help the encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Givingpeople useful information about what it is, does help. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 24 April 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) 07:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How Great Thou Art (Loi Mistica album)[edit]

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

Appears to have not charted (oh wait, there isn't an official music chart here in the Philippines), but there's also not enough coverage in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:45, 1 April 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) 19:12, 8 April 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, —Darkwind (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 17 April 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Chronicles of Legalization[edit]

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

Article concerns unremarkable student essay on legalization of marijuana; violates WP:NOTESSAY—does anyone know if this can be speedied? Ignatz mice•talk 04:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reading the "Addendum of Hope" section, I'm wondering if this might be a well-presented hoax. Thoughts? Ignatz mice•talk 05:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the comment. I have removed the attempted humorous element from the summary of the Addendum. Let me clarify that the Wikipedia article for The Chronicles of Legalization is NOT The Chronicles of Legalization itself. I wrote the Wikipedia article as an objective observation of the themes and implications contained within the essays themselves. Regardless of whether or not the Wikipedia article will be deleted at this point of time is a moot point: the publication exists, and has already been shared both with the subcommittee in Congress that proposed H.R.499 and to a small portion of the American public. talk 11:50, 15 April 2013 (PST)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as promotional (WP:G11) WP:GNG failure. There are very few standalone Wikipedia articles on scientific articles, because few such papers actually meet notability standards on their own. That this paper has been reviewed by a congressional subcommittee indicates some importance, but nowhere near the level needed for a standalone article. I also think this could just be a hoax. "The author intends to publish each of the Five Chronicles on Wikipedia by the end of April, 2013" basically admits to the promotional intent, indicating that the author thinks Wikipedia publishes original thought. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have edited the thumbnail text to read, "The author intends to publish each of the Five Chronicles by the end of April 2013." I will not go so far as to say that the publication has been reviewed by a congressional subcommittee at this point in time. But the paper HAS been sent to a legislative assistant that works in the office of the congressman who proposed H.R.499. So, at the very least, it is safe to assume that the publication will eventually play some role in the debates over marijuana prohibition. THE CHRONICLES OF LEGALIZATION IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE: it is a scientific argument that draws upon scientific references, among other types. THE CHRONICLES OF LEGALIZATION IS NOT A HOAX: whether or not the author exists (which he does, for the record) is irrelevant: these arguments now exist. talk 1:15pm, 16 April 2013 (PST)

Please see WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MADEUP. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The author has indirectly and respectfully invited President Barack Obama to visit the Wikipedia page and to read The Chronicles. The author will be uploading the remaining essays of The Chronicles momentarily. talk 4:40pm, 16 April 2013 (PST)
Delete. Unsourced essay. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: There are two sources thus far. The remaining sources can be found within the image for each Chronicle. On 22 April 2013, all sources will be included in the Wikipedia article. talk 12:45am, 17 April 2013 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.101.31 (talk) — 71.93.101.31 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete - There is no coverage about this collection of essays to establish it as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The collection of essays was written less than three weeks ago. Expectations of coverage for the article are simply those: expectations. The author of The Chronicles considers any additional comments by Wikipedia reviewers to delete the article as attempted infringements of his First Amendment rights as an American citizen, at least until 22 April 2013. The author is exercising his right of freedom of speech, petitioning the federal government of the United States for a redress of grievances. talk 12:25pm, 17 April 2013 (PST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.101.31 (talk)
- Reply - You have a fundamental misunderstanding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Wikipedia is not the United States Government. You are welcome to publish your screed elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Chronicles of Legalization has been published. The paper is available here: http://issuu.com/omsies/docs/chroniclesoflegalization. Please elaborate on the "fundamental misunderstanding" of the First Amendment. talk 3:00pm, 17 April 2013 (PST)
- Reply - that's off-topic for this discussion so I have answered on your talk page. -- Whpq (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you for the clarification. talk 3:20pm, 17 April 2013 (PST)
Delete; no-brainer, WP:SOAP. TJRC (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was already addressed. talk 5:20pm, 19 April 2013 (PST)
- No, and I don't believe it can be. This article is about a non-notable essay, and exists merely to promote it. TJRC (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that you call the essay 'non-notable,' and that you are trying to have the article deleted, is a testament to its notability. talk 7:38pm, 19 April 2013 (PST)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion via CSD#G4

Greg Colton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable television writer. A crew member on Family Guy who also directed some episodes, however notability is not inherited. This article was deleted once before, and then User:GageSkidmore recreated it wholesale in 2010... even including maintenance tags dating to 2009, which makes it seem as though it was just recreated in the same condition it was in before. I can't find any reliable sources covering this person in any detail. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G4. GageSkidmore recreated it two months after it was deleted. He is still an active editor. May be worth asking him why he ignored the deletion outcome. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article seems longer now then in 2010, but the subject still fails WP:BIO. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:14, 16 April 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 by User:INeverCry - CSD#G3 (blatant hoax). (non-admin closure) Gong show 05:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Digimon (2014 film)[edit]

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

I can't find any information about this, just fan art and fan-made YouTube trailers. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 02:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Creator's articles and contribs have all been false or vandalism. Speedy would probably be granted based on lack of information alone. Nate • (chatter) 02:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tagged it as a speedy because it looks to be a completely blatant hoax. The poster it goes to is something someone made on a lark and a search for "Digimon" and "Comi-con" brings up nothing to validate the claims that the movie is actually going to happen. If this was a real thing, we'd at least have some sort of hits in the fandom blogs/sites and there's literally nothing out there, which I would find hard to believe. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 16 April 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joey loglisci[edit]

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

I can't find significant discussion of this individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Google search (for either "Joey Loglisci" or "Joey Monaca") comes up with entries in lyrics sites, Reverbnation, SoundCloud, and the like. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:BAND. 1 third party sources which is minor. scope_creep (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being related to someone moderately well-known doesn't in itself make a person notable.Deb (talk) 19:36, 20 April 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 under criterion G7: the only editor who contributed material to the article requested deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Loufimpou[edit]

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

Has not played in a fully pro league or for an international tournament as per WP:NFOOTY. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:30, 16 April 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. The general consensus here seems to be that this individual, while associated with some notable works, has nonetheless not received the significant coverage himself that would demonstrate notability under our guidelines. ~ mazca ^talk 12:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce J. Sallan[edit]

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

This is not the subject of coverage by unrelated parties, and fails both WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. He is given only passing mention in reliable sources, and only the subject and related parties give him substantial coverage. No claim or accomplishment, even unsourced, rises to encyclopedic notability. This article seems to exist thanks to the subject himself. JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable author, no substantive coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with the above, a promotional BLP subject to puffery and COI editing (original BLP notification here), popped back up on my radar through recent changes, the guy has written a book that does not seem to have garnered any significant reviews, and an IP was adding back links to the Amazon page selling the book, Imdb and the subject's own website (see version here, notably reflist). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR, bio is apparently merely promotional. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per the above - vanity bio? ukexpat (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question per the above - I have been editing this page and am quite new to wikipedia. I am not sure what I have done to cause his page to need to be deleted. Please advise. I am a fan of his radio show and thought I would update his page but this seems to have caused issues. (talk) 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep As noted directly above I am new to wikipedia and still learning the ropes. If I added things I shouldn't have or entered things incorrectly I am more than willing to fix them. I am learning as I go. Please let me know if there are further issues with the page but I believe I have resolved them all. I have cited outside sources, established notability (he was a Vice President of ABC and Executive Producer of several series - two of which received important awards, he has a radio show (of which I personally am a fan). This page was created some time ago and I fear my edits may have caused it to be nominated for deletion. BwilsonCVA (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I looked at old versions before nominating, and I hope others peeked around before !voting. Generally, fixable problems aren't reasons to delete. We're not evaluating your work, but the subject of the article. Rising to a high corporate office or being the producer of an award winning show aren't inherently notable. Notability is usually about third-party coverage. Have a read at WP:42 and WP:BASIC for more. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the page about establishing notability it said if the person received awards or recognition in their field that was enough to establish notability. Why are his awards not enough to do that? BwilsonCVA (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whose awards? Has Burce Sallan received any awards? JFHJr (㊟) 04:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The shows he has produced have won awards. Is that not a recognition of his work? BwilsonCVA (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

reply - Nope: otherwise, everybody involved with the shows could make an argument for notability: see WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. Lincoln is clearly notable; his dog might be notable; his dog's vetinarian: not notable! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this piece of fluff'n'puff. Qworty (talk) 06:36, 17 April 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klik[edit]

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

This was prodded as promotional. I don't necessarily disagree, but it has been here for many years, the overall company is notable, merge is therefore a possibility, s rewrite might also be an option but I don't understand the subject well enough to do it, so I think we should get a community consensus on what to do about. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clickteam is a old games software company that easily satisfies WP:ORG with a article that describes their primary software product. There is a very active community around this product, for example [[10]]. Also Google books has several books describing the phenomenon of Klik. The article itself is really shabby, and seems to be largely created by anonymous editors, but that is no reason to delete it. A good cleanup and removal of any advertisement with addition of available references will do WP some good. scope_creep (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as per the above. --Yellow1996 (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or merge with Clickteam). When I created this article back in 2004 it was not for promotion of the products but because I thought that it was a notable topic worthy of an article. It was one of my first Wikipedia articles and adapted from a report I had written for College, and as such the content may need improvement. I think it remains a topic worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and that it should be improved rather than deleted. For example, the current list of 'well known' games does not provide sufficient background information such as the product used and how it is notable. However, if others feel that Klik does not merit its own article then I would suggest that at least some of the content is merged into the article on Clickteam. --Joshtek (talk) 19:44, 22 April 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coláiste na bhFiann[edit]

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

This page should be deleted because it is blatant self-promotion of the user's own organisation. YoungIreland (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment - This college (or rather its founder) is the subject of recent news (see this). That article says that the college is "one of the country's largest Irish colleges". There has been coverage about this college that may be singificant (for example, this article from 2010, which is in Irish and behind a paywall). The fact that the original author 5 years ago had a conflict of interest is irrelevant to the notability of the article. 137.43.188.205 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Well established, over 40 years, summer school for a slowly dying language. Google books has several entries, 3-6 books and several citations in Google scholar. Satisfies WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article needs worth, it's really shabby looking. Needs references added for somebody who can speak the language, or perhaps spend time to translate the citations etc. scope_creep (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important historically and linguistically, a well-established college. Besides which, the grounds for deletion appear to be unclear. The article has been recently tagged, and it can be easily fixed through normal editing. Hohenloh⁺ 00:52, 17 April 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. Broad consensus to keep, WP:OTHERSTUFF with a dose of slippery slope fearmongering is pretty much the only argument presented for deleting. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Surface Combustion[edit]

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

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable company that passes WP:CORPDEPTH. The company has received coverage in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, along with a plethora of coverage in the Toledo Blade. Source examples (many are paywalled): [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the propensity that editors have for creating articles about ~~tinpot~~ companies, and the spamming by marketing hacks, WP will eventually become a business directory with a few encyclopaedia articles.

-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does that make the topic non-notable? Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is like the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument but taken across WP as a whole. We should have articles on the really notable companies but we should not have a smattering of articles for the less notable companies. It leads to a "messy" structure and to have a WP article can lead to a company having an unfair commercial advantage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Not notable and WP:Just unencyclopedic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 14 April 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, AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long established company (nearly 100 years old) with significant press coverage, as well as many refs on Google Books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well established North American company that satisfies WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove This well established and respectable company has no greater value to the market place than any of it many competitors. Talk about scope creep. Just wait for those flood gates to open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WGornicki (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 April 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avenir Telecom[edit]

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

Routine non-notable business, a a telecommunication products' distributor and related services' provider, which is not particularly informative. They are apparently publicly traded on a French penny-stock market. It's apparently majorly owned by the holding OXO, a business we don't have an article on, and has has more than 671 retail locations for the Internity brand, which we don't have an article on either. The references are to business directories and self-hosted documents, and I find nothing better than reams of routine, press release driven, business-page notices of routine statements and transactions. This has been deleted previously via proposed deletion; recomment WP:SALT. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 05:47, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral as creator of the current article. I decided to write it because the company was of certain scale and a member of the CAC Small at some point, but problably it can be deleted without harm, being a marginal note in French-based enterprises. The same can be said of almost all the CAC Small companies, even various with articles at the moment, because they use to have a very narrow and little-scale scope of activities. Regards. Urbanoc (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to have a "demonstrable effect" as mentioned in WP:ORGSIG Richard-of-Earth (talk) 06:40, 9 April 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) 20:30, 9 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Publicly traded company with worldwide marketshare. The page needs more references and a picture of the headquarters, but it should not be deleted.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unobjectionable nonpromotional article on a small but moderately notable company. If it were promotional, I would be saying delete without the least hesitation. DGG ( talk ) 03:41, 24 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shakyra LaShae[edit]

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

Unremarkable model/actress. Fails WP:GNG. Only Google news result is a New York Daily News article (which is not a source I would ever use for a BLP). IMDB lists only a single credit, despite what is listed here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 10 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself notes the subject is an "aspiring" actress; her roles to date don't meet WP:ENT and no apparent significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 05:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not there yet. Mabalu (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:24, 18 April 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. Merged successfully. A history merge would be inappropriate, as it is not a cut-and-dried case of start on article A, then copy to article B. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poseidon (Kafka)[edit]

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

Duplicate. Poseidon (short story) is about the same short story but it's a better article. The Theosophist (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added the info from the more recently created page to the earlier article and redirect it there. I'd merge the page histories but I'm not exactly sure how to do that. In any case, there's only one entry now rather than two. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the only deletion rationale was that the article was a duplicate, can this nomination be withdrawn now that one article has been merged into the other? DoctorKubla (talk) 07:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Close Merge seems to solve the problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 16 April 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) 06:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honorsociety.org[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Article is built almost entirely around first-party source. "HonorSociety.org" gets zero Gnews hits, Alexa says few inbound links. Their FAQ page is an explicit music video, which doesn't exactly encourage me to take their words for things. Nat Gertler (talk) 06:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 9 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG, G-searches turn up largely trivial sources. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 05:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 14:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The article has multiple third party sources. Further it is in line with the write-ups of all other honor societies including Golden_Key_International_Honour_Society and Mortar_Board. If HonorSociety.org is to be deleted, serious consideration needs to be given to deleting these other pages as well. I believe a notice for more reference needed should be attached to the article, and it should be left for peer improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.18.77 (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let us look at those third-party sources. I can find zero mentions of honorsociety.org at the Bruin Dance Party site. I find one sentence about honorsociety.org at the CollegeBudget page, and it's part of CollegeBudget promoing a mutual effort ("We've teamed with HonorSociety.org to create a platform to help students initiate causes, rally support and raise funds collectively.") The MBAcrunch review is self-published by a blog author whose only posts during 2012 were hyping honorsociety.org... on a blog that seems to simply be an automatic reblog of academix press releases, to support a page that is trying to sell ads and failing, on a website that, judging by its Alexa ranking, has hardly been detected. As for those other pages, if you believe that they should be deleted, I encourage you to use the various Wikipedia deletion processes to address them. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Nat Gertler and HMSSolent. The organization appears to be non-notable, due to lack of results on Google News, and trivial results on Google search. There are a lot of results on YouTube, but those are mostly self-published videos. Edge3 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:55, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frank cooper III[edit]

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

Notability pretty sketchy per WP:BIO. I could be convinced either way, but if this passes AfD, then the notability tag should be removed. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly those with lesser notability have articles. Star767 02:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take it as a personal attack or what's worse, harassment, but your reason might not be valid. See WP:WAX. smtchahal^(talk) 11:01, 18 April 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, Courcelles 04:57, 9 April 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple instances of substantial independently published coverage showing in the footnotes, including pieces from Advertising Age and Billboard. A really bad challenge, seemingly, easy pass of GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Substantial coverage in reliable sources. smtchahal^(talk) 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely passes WP:GNG through in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's been some good cleanup since the nomination, but even then it wasn't fit to delete. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in reliable sources and the article passes WP:GNG. -- Cheers, Riley 19:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The article passes WP:GNG and has multiple coverage in reliable sources. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:27, 18 April 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.