< 19 January	21 January >

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

The result was delete. No arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:09, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ReaperAle Brewing Company[edit]

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

Non-notable brewery. ~~References provide a few passing mentions in the Los Angeles Times, nothing more. I could find no sources in a search.~~ Sorry, I misstated. Actually the article references provide no independent reliable sources; in a search I found a couple of passing mentions in the LA Times. Declined prod. MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I cannot find coverage to establish notability. Can the nominator share the LA Times references? I see none in the article, nor did I find any in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found two passing mentions at the LA Times: [1] [2] (I sure miss Google News Archive, don't you?) --MelanieN (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. They are passing mentions as one beer out of a list of beers. That's well short of significant. -- Whpq (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical article for non notable brewery insufficient reliable sources, becausethere's nothing betterto be found. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Wikswo[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the notability requirements for an academic as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Daesnsieatble (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)— Daesnsieatble (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject clearly and obviously passes the notability requirements for an academic as per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), contrary to the nominator. In particular, he has a named chair at Vanderbilt (#C5), has a Google scholar h-index of 43 with nine papers cited 100 times or more [3] (#C1), and is a fellow of five major academic societies (#C3). Any one of these would be enough by itself for a pass. A bad nomination from a new user whose only contribution under this name has been to make this nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Eppstein shows he meets notability guidelines for academics. The article is currently lacking references to independent reliable sources, but his research has been reported on various websites/publications.[4][5][6][7][8]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously, the above two editors say it all. --Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, quite obviously passes the notability requirements, as demonstrated by David Eppstein and Colapeninsula. StringTheory11 (t • c) 03:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Just to pile-on, WoS shows an h-index of 35 with a citation list of 223, 217, 213, ... conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as above. spa nominator has made 3 edits. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Singhmar[edit]

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

Subject fails on WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Best known as the founder of a band, AntarDhvani, which seems non-notable itself and fails on general criteria of inclusion. References are dubious and unreliable consisting of trivial coverage, including facebook pages and youtube videos. The Times Of India, so far my guess is concerned, is a reliable source,is mentioned falsely in the references which redirects to a Facebook Page. Conclusively, an article about a musician which fails to establish notability. Hitro talk 22:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 09:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage about this person as an individual musician. Normally, this would be a redirect to the band article but the article is under AFD, and I don't see noability for the band either. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Person is not notable.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AntarDhvani[edit]

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

Fails on WP:BAND. References are from YouTube, Facebook and some unreliable sources which are mostly frivolous in nature. Edit History reflects that this article has been edited mostly by people related to this band. One YouTube video is non-english, other is just trivial. Altogether crashes on WP:GNG with zero encyclopedic value. Considering The Times of India to be a reliable source,it is mentioned in the reference list but it redirects to a Facebook page. Hitro talk 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Facebook links are to scans of print sources. Copyvio issues aside, one of the is Mercedes Benz magazine. Possibly not a reliable source. The other is tagged as from the Times of India, but appears to be a local supplement, My Times (Gurgaon). The band has no discernable discography, and is not signed to any label. -- Whpq (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unless there is some evidence of discernable discography or signed to a label.Preetikapoor0 (talk) 03:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Waterfall Chart Microsoft Office add-ins[edit]

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

All information is either pulled directly from a product advertisement or is based on original research. I don't think secondary source material would be possible for something this specific. Even with prices removed it reads like a sales catalog. Some of this could possibly be moved into Waterfall chart, though I'm not sure how much without it being a blatant product advertisement. --ElHef (Meep?) 20:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most comparison pages as WP:OR. Pburka (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the addins listed have WP articles or appear to meet GNG, and as an OR list/comparison of entirely non-notable items this should be deleted.Dialectric (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's useful article. If I was looking add-in for making waterfall charts, this article I would really helped. May be including info about prices is too much for WP, but other content needed for users. So I disagree with deletion Allenclarck85 00:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:OR from the selection of comparison criteria and exclusive reliance on primary sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree it's useful for reasons Allenclarck85 mentioned, and I appreciate his work creating the article, but it's still original research based on advertisements. Comparison articles like these are extremely easy to skew for promotional purposes, and require added vigilance to assure objectivity and neutrality. ––Agyle (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed References have been added Allenclarck85 11:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allenclark85 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete I don't readily see the primary sources as supporting the content in the article. The article is in dire need of WP:RS before the claim that WP:OR is null. Mkdw ^talk 21:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The discussions reference some other, ostensibly similar, articles, but those should be dealt with as their own AfDs, if appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cyriel Camiel and Hector Alidor Lesage[edit]

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

No evidence of notability or WP:RS. It seems to be a family history piece and is totally original research. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I fear the same is true for the other articles which I suspect to have been created by a sockpuppet of the same user:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Lesage brothers. Completely non-notable. The other articles need separate AfDs of course. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Youth lost to war is tragic, but not notable. EricSerge (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the LeSage brothers. No matter how well written the essay on them may be, WP is not a place for memorials. (With respect to notability from the awards, a/c the WP article on the awards they received, in WWI it was awarded very widely--for example, for 3 years active service. )

Delete also Sister Declercq. Same reasoning DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Vanhecke and Judith Declerque. Vanhecke is a Professor of Music, with numerous compositions, performancea and recordings to her credit, and is almost certainly notable, tho reviews need to be found. J.D. was president of a national organization, and needs discussion. They should not have been included in the nomination, because there are real factors that might make for notability and that need to be discussed separately. Even if the intention was family memorials, some of the people might be actually notable, and we shouldelte on the basis of the resulting articles, not the presumed intention. DGG ( talk ) 17:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New introduction written after an email discussion with Prof Declercq - he felt that the article was not well-written because the essential facts had been hidden in the bulk of the article and did not come out clearly in the intro which may have caused incomplete judgement. Also the fact that engraved evidence on a grave is of equal importance as facts listed in books, may have been overlooked. It may also be worthwile mentioning that Cyriel Lesage is buried a few meters away from Edith Piaf and many other notable people at Pere Lachaise in Paris. This is the new introduction :

Cyriel Camiel Lesage and Hector Alidor Lesage were brothers who were soldiers for Belgium during World War I. Both have excelled in bravery during the most decisive battles of World War I and received military distinctions. The suffering of their family is representative for the disaster of World War I in Flanders Fields. The eldest, Cyriel, has fought in the crucial battles at the beginning of the war to slow down the invading German troops and to halt them at the river Yser, therefore disrupting Germany’s Schliefen Plan. The youngest, Hector, has fought in the final battle to defeat the Germans after he had voluntarily joined the army to revenge the death of his brother Cyriel. Both have received the “Croix de Guerre” medal, Cyriel also received the Yser Medal, while Hector additionally received the Victory medal and the “Inter-Allied Victory Medal 1914–1918”. Cyriel is one of only a handful of soldiers who have been buried during WWI at the Paris’ world famous cemetery of Père Lachaise, while Hector has been buried at the military cemetery of Houthulst, not far from where he was killed. The brothers have two great-grandfathers who had earlier fought in Napoleon’s "Grande Armée". They are the granduncles of soprano and music composer Françoise Vanhecke and physicist and Georgia Tech Professor Nico Felicien Declercq. They are also blood-related to Belgium’s well-known music composer Peter Benoit. User:FlandersFieldsStory 12:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to decry your article, though it would be good if you could keep to one account only in discussion (WP:Sockpuppet). Close on half a million Belgians were awarded the Inter-allied Victory medal (i.e. the entire army); the Yser Medal is a campaign medal awarded to all soldiers of four divisions that took part in the Battle of the Yser. The Croix de Guerre is a gallantry medal, but is much more commonly awarded for long service and is very common. Unfortunately, it is not really notable. @DGG, Judith Declerque is not named as head of the organization, just the head of provincial part of it - so one of the top 8 people in a small organization over a small time period...User:FlandersFieldsStory, please read WP:NotabilityBrigade Piron (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As there is no relationship between these four articles I really don't think we can consider them as a single AfD. In any case, Judith Declerq has her own AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valiram Group[edit]

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

Article appears to be naked advertising WP:SPAM. No references are cited and no effort is made to establish notability in the article. Article's creator and various editors appear to be connected to or employees of the subject corporation. Article was previously cited for copyright violation, direct copy and paste from subject's Linked In page. Linked In page was subsequently deleted. Article was tagged for conflict of interest, no sources, advertisement, and lack of notability. Article was also tagged PROD. PROD tag & maintenance tags were all subsequently removed without explanation or any corrections to the article. A quick Google failed to turn up any WP:RS sources establishing notability. Am I missing something here? Let me know if I am pulling the trigger too quickly. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be spam and fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A corporate article by a WP:SPA; Highbeam turns up various articles in New Straits Times and Malay Mail but they are syndicated PR announcements rather than the in-depth WP:RS coverage about the firm as required for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to cover a notable subject per WP:NOTABILITY 3er40 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Couldn't find enough independent reliable coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. The article has some advertising issues but those are lesser concerns. Mkdw ^talk 21:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 22:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VF-19 Excalibur[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Macross through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details and in-depth product details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. I am also nominating these articles with the same issues:

Seems like a lock for deletion or at best redirection. Abductive (reasoning) 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible but unlikely search terms. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domain registrars in Kenya[edit]

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

No indication of significance and third party reference links. It promotes companies indirectly. Itsalleasy (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly-worded nomination, but WP:NOTCATALOG applies. Bare listing of domain registrars that duplicates the information of its one reference. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total cruft directory. Possible copyvio as it justs lists names, copied from a directory without any references or content. I'm not going to check for fear of viruses. Bearian (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izzat Abdul Rahim[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY as has not played in a top fully pro professional league. Has only played in the Malaysia Premier League (the second tier) and not the Malaysia Super League (the top tier). This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL since Putrajaya SPA F.C is in the second tier of Malaysian football. --Artene50 (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Força da Paz[edit]

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

Non notable band, fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Prod declined by article creator without explanation. Article is in Portuguese. No sources. Safiel (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has since been translated, but all other aspects of AfD nomination still apply. Safiel (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence whatever of notability. Each of the cited sources merely includes the name of the band in a list, and makes no other mention of it. Searching for other sources needs to be done with care, because "Força da Paz ", meaning "power of peace", occurs far more often in other contexts, unrelated to the band, than in relation to the band. However, it is easy enough to deal with that problem by including in the search term other information, such as the names of one or more members of the band. For example, a Google search for "Força da Paz" "Jonas Shnaider" produces 57 hits. The first few of these are English Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikipedia, Facebook, Soundcloud, Youtube, Youtube again, Youtube again, a tumblr page that merely includes Força da Paz in a list, a page telling us that on 29 September 2012 Força da Paz organised an event (presumably a gig, but it doesn't say) which was attended by 68 people, and so it goes on. Similar results come from other searches. No sign of significant coverage in independent reliable sources anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google links are Portuguese, and don't meet RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Čomor[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 22:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robbie Best[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played for years at top level of Irish football, which naturally leads to significant coverage [9] meeting WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. JMHamo (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG as he hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources in addition to failing WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nosound: The World Is Outside[edit]

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

Couln't establish WP:NOTABILITY Boleyn (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into Snapchat. As User:NinjaRobotPirate said, If it turns out to have lasting consequences, it can always be recreated. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Snapchat hack[edit]

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

Fails WP:EVENT - just a minor blip in the history of snapchat - no evidence of last effect. Beerest 2 talk 15:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Event had outspread coverage by multiple reliable sources. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:EVENT and WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main Snapchat article. WP:EVENT is probably not satisfied in this case - it's really just a minor blip in Snapchat's history and can easily be summarized there. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 19:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Snapchat. Could easily be summarized there. If it turns out to have lasting consequences, it can always be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple reliable sources. much coverage. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, significant amount of coverage. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of coverage isnt what we look for in a event. The two of you are AFD veterans, you should know this. Beerest 2 talk 21:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Snapchat. as noted above, this single event fits well under the general article of the company.Dialectric (talk) 13:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: as I argued on this one's DYK submission, I can't help but feeling that this article may violate WP:GNG and WP:NPOV, and that its content should be integrated in the Snapchat main article. I mean, just how important is this in the scale of things? Sure, there has been a "good" level of coverage in the world's press, but I being reported in the media doesn't make it encyclopaedic. It is just one very very small episode in the era of internet security glitches, and ought not to be an excuse to create an article for DYK that may damage the company. If Snapchat was a person (yea, I know it isn't), WP:BLP would make us highly circumspect about creating such an article. More customer data has been hacked from Adobe and many others, or more data innocently "lost" by Mastercard, than this little company. Even if this causes the company to fold, which it won't, the text belongs in the parent. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 14:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMERGE to Snapchat. Light on facts. Not significant enough for its own page, lacking any sort of long-term impact. The drivel/filler commentary should be pruned. (Epic example: "some Snapchat users posted to Twitter that they were not worried about the hack". Whoaaa...) The arguments above for keeping this are essentially WP:109PAPERS. Someone not using his real name (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Snapchat. The basic notable details can easily be described within main article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited this article a fair bit to make it more factually correct. While it's true that the coverage actually spans more than a narrow interval because it took four months (not a week as the article claimed initially) from the initial vulnerability disclosure to the hack (the exploit source code that any script kiddies could use was released a week before the hack), it can still be described in 3-4 paragraphs with plenty of technical details if one omits the filler blather. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Aliens_(film) I don't actually see a real consensus here. If anything, the arguments lean towards delete, but leaving the redirect behind seems harmless, especially considering Carrie Henn already redirects there. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Henn (actress)[edit]

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

The page only contains one sentence and does not explain fully why the person is notable enough to have an article. Makro (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 15:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Safiel (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Her award-winning performance in Aliens was widely discussed. However, from all indications, she's not notable for anything else, and is now a low-profile person who gets coverage only in "where are they now" pieces. Accordingly, following WP:BLP1E, the best result should be to restore the previously-existing redirect, targeted to Aliens (film)#Cast. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her career is essentially a single event, unfortunately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ~~and Merge the single reference to her entry under Aliens (film)#Cast, which is significantly longer than this article but does not contain the reference.~~Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reference has now apparently been added, I'm reducing my !vote to redirect per Arxiloxos above.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We already have a Carrie Henn article that redirects to Aliens (film), so is there really a need for two redirects referring to the same person that redirects to the same article, especially since there is little to no chance of Carrie Henn ever being restored to an article since she has no plans of doing any more acting and there is no one else with that name who is notable for an article at the moment? The article should just be completed deleted since it makes for a pointless search term anyway. 69.118.139.78 (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She may have only had one role, but that was an iconic role in an iconic film. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~She had a major role in a major film. The film itself won several major awards including two Academy Awards. Carrie Henn won the Saturn Award for best Performance by a Younger Actor.[10]. I think Henn has sufficient notability for an article based upon this performance alone. ~~However without trivia from her later life, this article will be limited to a couple of lines, and we should consider WP:BLP1E per Arxiloxos above.~~Martin451 08:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:. One iconic role in an iconic film is good enough. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails both WP:NACTOR (she had only one acting role, did not contribute to the entertainment industry, and has no social media profiles showing any fan base) and WP:GNG (no substantial coverage in any major entertainment news sites, just brief mentioning in articles that focus mainly on Aliens (film) and "Where is she now?" listings that often talk about any former child actor from back then, regardless of notability). She also fails WP:NACADEMICS as a teacher since she is not a professor at a famous university who made a world changing discovery, just a typical schoolteacher and I highly doubt her students, family, friends, and superiors care that she was in Aliens (film) as a child. Expansion of this article is highly unlikely, so no point in having it, especially since we already have a Carrie Henn redirect to Aliens. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

James r hollands[edit]

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

Article does not sufficiently indicate how the subject is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. Google search for "james hollands" songwriter does not result in significant discussion. References provided do not mention the subject. I'm not disputing that he's co-written the songs, only that in itself it doesn't establish notability. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Self-promotion, therefore fails Wikipedia:Conflict of interest as well as GNG, SIGCOV, etc, etc. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He fails WP:CREATIVE badly. Even if everything is true, he's just your average songwriter. None of his songs appear to have been hits yet. As an actor, he has not appeared enough to be notable for his acting. His only remote "claim to fame"/notability is his work (once) with Mirotic. I didn't see anything special online. If something has changed, or we find more information, I'd be willing to change my !vote. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The google search results don't show any WP:RS to establish the subject's notability and the subject created his own article which may be OK if he was notable. But he isn't, so he fails WP:N at present. In future, he may be notable and could merit his own article but not at the present time. --Artene50 (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above - SimonLyall (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COMPOSER may have been met had he won either of these awards [11] [12], but he didn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Science in Clinical Optometry by Salus University[edit]

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

Article duplicates Master of Science with far too much specificity (being an individual course on an individual subject being offered by an individual university) for which no independent coverage in reliable sources has been presented. WP:COI possible but not definite. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too specific of an article. Individual degree programs are not notable or encylopedic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have almost always deleted such articles about individual programs. Bearian (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not separately notable. --MelanieN (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Datacoin[edit]

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

Non-notable altcoin, fails WP:GNG and potentially WP:PROMO. Citation Needed | Talk 14:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/datacoin-dtc-features-blockchain-data-003900184.html http://www.kswo.com/story/24482545/datacoin-dtc-features-in-blockchain-data-storage-and-web-apps-embedded-in-blockchain http://news.silobreaker.com/datacoin-dtc-features-inblockchain-data-storage-and-web-apps-embedded-in-blockchain-5_2267672482729164844 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.192.199 (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Nom fails WP:GNG.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search reveals PR, forum posts and blogs, this heavy.com article, but not enough significant RS coverage to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can confirm Dialectric's findings above. No notability. Also, heavy.com should not be considered a serious news source. Smite-Meister (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG per nom. KonveyorBelt 17:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability by WP:GNG, WP:CORP, or WP:WEBSITE. I might consider heavy.com as a weak reliable source, as these styles of “online tabloid journalism” typically seem to employ editors and writers, and I am not aware of their posting articles as unlabeled paid placement; however, by itself, it doesn't establish notability. The only clearly reliable sources I found that mention datacoin are posting a press release. ––Agyle (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft:Datacoin as WP:TOOSOON. There's no reason to hide to remove this content from view, as it doesn't contain COPYVIO nor BLP stuff, but it lacks verifiability. Some of the content may be useful for an article about alternate diginal coins, though, which is a notable topic. Diego (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree and this doesn't conflict with delete votes above, besides potentially isn't enough to request deletion. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no guidelines in place currently cover moves from afd to draft. I suggest such moves only be considered when the article in question meets the Incubation criteria set by the Article Incubator project, as it is substantially similar to draft. Datacoin does not appear to meet this criteria.Dialectric (talk) 07:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanawat Wattanaputi[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actor and model. The only references there have ever been in the article, to a blog and another Wiki, have been removed for not being reliable sources, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncensored BLP.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As unsourced BLP and possible violation of the notability policy, as it also seems to fail a Google notability test (no reliable sources at first glance)Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced BLP. --Artene50 (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A later merger may also be appropriate, but that is not the purpose here at WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Smith-Briggs Child Protection Reform Act[edit]

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

Completing nomination process for an unregistered user, who gave the following rationale: Article just duplicates or refers to content that already exists in Kelsey Smith-Briggs. It has been a stub tagged with "Unreferenced" and "Expert needed" tags for over four years and I cannot find anything substantial beyond what is already in this short article. This is one of the cases where separate articles for the murder victim and a law named after him/her is completely unnecessary like Kendra Webdale, Nixzmary Brown, Leandra's Law, or even Amber Hagerman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.139.6 (talk) 15:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer tagged as unreferenced. The presence of tags on an article proves nothing. James500 (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know if I can vote in this AfD since I am the one completing it, but I would say Delete because it has barely changed or expanded since its creation in June 2009 and I have been unable to find any other significant information about the law that can be added to this article either, probably because the law only applies to one state where as the cases where we do have separate articles for the law and the victims they're named after (e.g. Jessica's Law/Jessica Lunsford and Laci and Conner's Law/Laci Peterson), it applies to multiple states or an entire country. The first paragraph just duplicates Section 5 of Kelsey Smith-Briggs while the second paragraph just reiterates what happened to her, which is already explained in detail in her article. I removed a third paragraph while completing this process because it just duplicated the first and future expansion is highly unlikely. I do not think this is a plausable search time either since her name is already in the law's name, which is quite long anyway. However, I have no objections to redirecting to Kelsey Smith-Briggs if you believe that is a better choice. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the article has changed or expanded since its creation is irrelevant as Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline. Clairvoyant predictions that the article is unlikely to be expanded in the future should be ignored. James500 (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good sources for this piece of legislation do exist. See, for example, the Oklahoma Statutes Annotated, published by West. Primary legislation is very unlikely to be non-notable. In fact, there is a strong case for arguing that primary legislation is inherently notable and should have its own SNG. The worst case scenario for this article is to merge it into a broader article on this area of the law or on whichever Code it is part of. Deletion is out of the question. James500 (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. James500 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This enactment may be referred to by other designations. It is, for example, sections 1 to 16 of 2006 c 205. It is also HB 2840 (2006). James500 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. There is a report on this Act commissioned by the government of Conneticut. A number of pdf documents published by Universities come up in Google searches. James500 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC) And Google Scholar identifies an article at 59 Oklahoma Law Review 319 that discusses this Act. James500 (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG and by the number of users above there seems to be more sources that can be added to the article.--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – totally redundant to Kelsey Smith-Briggs and does not sufficiently pass WP:GNG to warrant its own article. Epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A biography is not an appropriate place to discuss a piece of legislation (with the possible exception of post office renaming Acts). Apart from its short title, this piece of legislation is not merely a memorial to that person. It seems to me that GNG needs to be urgently rewritten to stop people from arguing that no matter how much coverage there is, it is not significant. James500 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kelsey Smith-Briggs is technically not a biographical article, but a combination of biography and murder case. If you really want a pure biography, we would have this article with just information about her life (which unfortunately is not a lot since she was only three when she was murdered) and another article titled something like Murder/Death of Kelsey Smith-Briggs talking about her abuse, eventual death, and subsequent trial and conviction of her parents, which is what the Kelsey Smith-Briggs is about anyway (we have a similar issue with Trayvon Martin and Shooting of Trayvon Martin). If you really think a biographical article is not an appropriate place to discuss a piece of legislation, does that mean we should also separate Nixzmary Brown from Nixzmary's Law and Amber Hagerman from Amber Alert (they were recently merged via discussions and boldness)? Since this law article still just duplicates what already exists in Briggs's article, unless more substantial information about the law can be found, perhaps the best thing to do is merge both into one new article titled Death of Kelsey Smith-Briggs (like we do for other child deaths like Death of Caylee Anthony or Murder of Adam Walsh) because she is not notable, the way she died is. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This enactment will presumably be used in cases that have no connection to the original murder. As long as a piece of legislation is in force it is a live issue for everyone in the jurisdiction to which it applies. If I was looking for a merger target, it would be an article that was primarily about the law of Oklahoma. It may be that other articles should be unmerged, but I can't comment without looking at them. I was under the impression that I had found more substantial information about the enactment. James500 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been running for twelve days without being relisted or closed. An AfD is only suppossed to run for seven days. There is no consensus for deletion, merger or redirection and there is no realistic prospect that such a consensus will form. It is absolutely clear that there will never be a consensus for deletion. I suggest that this AfD should just be closed as "no consensus". If editors want to propose mergers (and this is a merger proposal masquerading as an AfD) let them do it through the correct procedure. I am tempted to suggest that this should be closed as "speedy keep" on grounds that no one appears to have unequivocally argued for deletion (the IP placed an AfD tag in response to his unnilateral merger being reversed, so I infer that what he is really asking for is a merger) and it would, indeed, be preposterous to do so. James500 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunisa Jett[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actress and model. The only references there have ever been in the article, to a blog and another Wiki, have been removed for not being reliable sources, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that the article, along with several others nominated by the nominator at much the same time, is an an unsourced BLP only because the nominator removed the existing sources immediately before nominating it. A quick glance suggests that the sources were just as unreliable as the nominator has stated - but, in this kind of situation, it is almost always better to leave the links in, point out their unreliability in the nomination and leave the rest of us to make up our own minds (the one real exception is if the linked page contains malware or falls under Wikipedia blacklisting criteria). PWilkinson (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only "source" was a blog, and the removal of it is mentioned in the nomination, so checking the "reference" can be easily done through the page history (through the direct link to it that is prominently featured in the nomination...). Thomas.W ^{talk to me}

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Atichart Chumnanon[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actor and model. The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per NOM unsourced BLP.--Jeffrd10 (talk) 14:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rattapoom Toekongsap[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai "actor, singer and model". The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If anyone were interested enough to incorporate some of the available sources into the article we could avoid deletion. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Supreeleela[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai actress. The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mikoy Morales[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Filipino "actor, singer and model". The only reference there was in the article, to a fanblog on Blogspot, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what a disaster. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I removed a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Scott (Thai actor)[edit]

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

Totally unsourced BLP about Thai "actor, singer and model". The only reference there has ever been in the article, to another Wiki, has been removed for not being a reliable source, leaving the article without any source of any kind. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced WP:BLP violation. --DAJF (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Silverstone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article on former wine merchant and broadcaster of borderline notability at best. Apparent autobiography, article was promotional. Unsourced claims and puffery were removed. Subject, after repeatedly blanking the text, now requests deletion[13], which should be granted per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Coretheapple (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After filing this AfD, it came to my attention that this is a re-creation of an article that was deleted per a previous AfD discussion.WP:Articles_for_deletion/Phillip_Silverstone. Apparently nobody noticed when this article was re-created two months after the 2008 deletion. This article should be Speedily deleted and salted. The same account that created this article, which was indef blocked for sockpuppetry, also created Phillip silverstone, which was speedily deleted and should also be salted. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. This article as it stands isn't eligible for speedy deletion (it wasn't created in violation of the blocked user's sanctions, it isn't the same (any more) as the deleted version, and it contains sufficient sourcing to make a claim of significance). That said, having hunted for sources I've struggled to find anything that doesn't ultimately originate from Silverstone himself. I'd be up for changing my !vote if a few independent sources were found, but from what I can see, there isn't enough out there to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it extensively to try to salvage it, but that was not satisfactory to the subject, who persistently blanked the page and restored the puffy version. I was contemplating nominating it for deletion myself, and the subject's wish to have it deleted clinched it for me. Please note that while the subject did make a legal threat, he also explicitly asked for it to be deleted, and I think we should honor his wishes irrespective of his conduct, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Coretheapple (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per subject request and individual seems of marginal notability. Thincat (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Found this source which says he was twice nominated for an Emmy (though Emmy's can be regional, needs verification). I could probably put together a case for notability using commercial databases which archive pre-Internet when he was more active and (potentially) had more coverage, but since a request for deletion was made I will support that and let it go. -- GreenC 07:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Azubuike Wokocha[edit]

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

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

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

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

Not clear how this meets notability guidelines. References provided are of unclear reliability and at least one if not more are self-published. Claims such as " 26 song hit compilation" and "smash single" without mention of charting position are more promotional than demonstrating notability. RadioFan (talk) 04:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RadioFan, Well, I've corrected the " 26 song hit compilation" and "smash single", as for the article, the sources are from media blogs reporting on music and entertainment most of which have been running for years now with professional writers. Please keep the article. Thank youAfrowildchild (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Number 8 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". The subject has won a music award in his state, which is shown in the article. Numbers 11 and 12 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles says "Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." The subject has released a compilation which was aired on radio stations in the country, he is also a radio personality and conducts radio shows on air. Also note that I've also introduced more reliable sources from the news websites announcing him as the producer of the year in 2009 in accordance with number 1 on the Criteria for musicians and ensembles which says "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries"--Afrowildchild (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Little or no coverage online. References in article largely WP:USERGENERATED. Levdr1lp / talk 17:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Subject is West African and lives in Nigeria, has won an award in his country, has releases which was covered by radio and local news agencies who also publish online, has been mentioned on other articles indicating importance. Article has moderately sufficient reliable sources.— Adrian Esomchi (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article is notable to some extent and contain enough references from entertainment news websites in the musicians'region. Al Gomez (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User is a confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs). Other sockpuppets of Stanleytux have made !votes below, which have been stricken. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not have have reliable sources. Most (if not all) of the sources are press releases. As a matter of fact, the subject himself is not notable. He's only known in his hometown and not across Nigeria. There's even a wordpress citation included in the article. versace1608 (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC.--Alice Shedrack (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

~~Keep~~ while one or two sources are self published, subject has received significant independent coverage in newly added reliable sources ([14]) and ([15]) have been added to article. Just passes WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.Tinted iris (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

keep per tinted Pass a Method talk 17:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ Just gone through the references provided in the well-written article. Subject clearly demonstrates the notability standard in WP:MUSIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thirdstrike11 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tinted Iris's claims are wrong. Spyghana is not a reliable source, it's just a standard promo bio. Rhythm937 is the radio station the subject works for so is clearly not independent. Wokocha lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Contrary to the duffbeer's claim, spyghana and ogololaughs and a few others in the references are reliable sources independent of subject and also has editorial oversight. With that said, subject meets notability guidelines, WP:Musicbio and WP:NMUSIC.DJ Arafat (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account (sock?) peddling misinformation. Spyghana: "Do you have a story or an article to publish?" [16] "providing a platform where readers and contributors may have an imprint on public policy, influence public opinion and ultimately, contribute towards bringing the change that we desire in our country, Ghana". A website that hapily republishes pr cruft. ogololaughs: [17] "Incorporated in Nigeria in 2007 as a full time Events Management outfit, constructions and supplies inclusive", clearly not a relable source. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The account is a confirmed sockpuppet of Stanleytux (talk · contribs) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While concerns about unreferenced promotional sounding claims have been addressed, reliability of the sources in the article are still unclear. The claim that this artist has received a "major award" has not been substantiated, a state level award doesn't not seem to meet this. The flurry of sockpuppets certainly doesn't do anything to establish the notability of this artist either. RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is unclear and references look unreliable. See also Nigerian scam. Admiral Caius (talk) 14:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slant.co[edit]

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

Non-notable website, no coverage. I speedied but an IP user removed the tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://gigaom.com/2013/07/21/five-companies-yahoo-should-buy-to-turbocharge-its-turnaround/

https://angel.co/slant they also have very notable investors you can see in that profile, with a lot more very notable investors visable if you have an AngelList account and you're also an investor. They are also mentioned here: http://www.brw.com.au/p/entrepreneurs/young_thriving_start_investor_bardia_GFu1KbKoJsfDGfkA8F4yGO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.54.103 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 January 2014

Reply Having a lot of investors (even notable ones) doesn't count toward notability on Wikipedia. The first link you gave is a step in the right direction. The second one isn't, it's just a routine listing with a statement by Slant itself. The third one also isn't: it's about an investor, and lists some of his investments a couple of times, including Slant, but says nothing about them. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. I did manage to find another reference at freewaregenius but that combined with the supplied gigaom.com reference does not establish sufficient notability. I cannot find anything else relevant on Google, Google News or Highbeam. Nik thestunned 11:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable web content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5, created by user evading block. Amalthea 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuranShow[edit]

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

Not notable radio show. Jeff Duran aka Jeff Joseph Dandurand aka Jeffrey Dandurand is not notable. Belligerence - The Journey of JJ Star, How Embarrassing, Defects of Character and Cursed Since Birth are not notable. His individual radio shows is not notable. Wikipedia is not here to promote Duran and it is not here to catalog the output of a non notable individual. Clips from the show and media releases are not independent sources. There is no coverage of this show in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme since you have been doing such a fine job making sure my name or anything that is associated with me doesn't appear (Now be a good little nerd and stop with the ignorant commentary where you make it known how "not notable" I or whatever associated with me is.) You can tear my pathetic career to shreds but alluding that I was behind any of this amateurish horse shit in various posts is borderline slanderous. I am surprised people don't look into why you make such an effort to police any mention of my likeness or associations. Good job taking me off, bad job keeping your personal vendettas out of your un-paid writing gig. Justify your existence explaining why all those shitty indie bands/people from Australia nobody knows have Wikipedia pages - instead of pouring salt on my name. There should be no need for LAWSUITS -- instead require that statements by douche bags like duffbeerforme be investigated, along with a LINK to their website/blog/page with whatever supporting documents they wish to provide. While I respect you for keeping me off of Wikipedia, the ignorant shit that follows needs to stop asap. Something is not notable-erase it or whatever, no need to take shots when I had no intention for some of my past failures to be read or known by anybody. Thanks for making it public and worse.--JeffDandurand (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that you are saying you are Jeff Duran? First your claim I have repeatedly alluded that you were behind any of this amateurish horse shit. Where have I alluded that. I can't recall ever previously having suggested that JosephDann was Jeff Joseph Dandurand. I have been operating based on JosephDann's claim that he is not Duran. Second, the thanks for making any of this public. You'll have to direct those thanks to JosephDann, he in the one responsible for introducing your story to Wikipedia. Third, if you think I should be investigated the best place to go for that would probably be WP:ANI. Fell free to do so, but beforehand you should read WP:NPA and WP:LEGAL. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Taunt[edit]

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

A rather useless content fork of Taunting, and really adds nothing to the understanding of that topic ES &L 11:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete nosense and no notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Useless is a pretty accurate word to describe this. Everything we need to know about taunting is already in Taunting.LM2000 (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete It is almost a direct copy of Taunting - not sure what the point is but clearly a recently created article covering an existing topic.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless content fork of Taunting. jni (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Previous comments have nailed it.Mdtemp (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Or, perhaps, stepover-armlock-camel-clutched into oblivion? Sandstein 20:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing moves in professional wrestling[edit]

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

This is effectively a "List of" except that only a couple of the moves actually have articles...and even those probably should not. As such, this is a non-notable list, and purely WP:OR ES &L 10:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. There is no sourced definition of what constitutes a finishing move and few of the listed moves are sourced. Non Notable list. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete any move in wrestlinc can be a finisher. No notable--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This might be a good idea for an article in theory but I don't know if there is any way to create a realistic list, because as HHH Pedigree points out, any move can be a finisher. So we'll always end up with an immense and unmanageable list.LM2000 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Meh, not my cuppa tea. However, there are some sources and some notable moves. Can it be fixed in the normal course of editing? See WP:TNT. Are the sources any good? See WP:RS. My take: why not? Bearian (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a fan of pro wrestling, but any move could be a finishing move. Any move that's a specialty of a particular wrestler should be in that wrestler's article. This may also fall under [{WP:OR]]. Mdtemp (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Since the editor who originally contested the previous PROD has now !voted for deletion, and since this seems to be snowballing anyway, an early close seems warranted. Note that I was the admin who originally undeleted the article, and I've briefly discussed it with Gstridsigne; if anyone feels that I therefore shouldn't be closing this discussion and that it should run its full course, please contact me. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bambakomallophobia[edit]

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

Non-notable phobia - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Contains massive original research and "if..." statements. Absolute failure in terms of medical references. This is in no way an appropriate topic for inclusion, and was deleted after PROD and should have stayed that way ES &L 09:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE!!: We just undeleted it! It is a legitimate and notable phenomenon, and I think should be kept. Give us some time to work on the article so that it is up to Wikipedia standards. It was literally, undeleted about a half an hour ago! This seems more like an axe-to-grind than a nomination for a legitimate article for deletion. Gstridsigne (talk) 09:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's something in progress, and fails to meet Wikipedia's most basic standards, it should be in either WP:AFC or a sandbox - this "article" should not be articlespace whatsoever. It's dangerous to people right now because it's purporting to be a medical article ES &L 10:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The one reference it contains doesn't mention the topic. This looks to fall somewhere between urban legend and hoax.—Kww(talk) 12:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It most certainly is NOT an urban legend or a hoax. It is a legitimate phenomenon, because I experience it. My sister experiences it too, and there might actually be a genetic-component to it. When I requested undeletion, I had no idea the stringent criteria for medical condition articles on wikipedia. It most certainly does ride the cusp of a psychological/neurological condition, but has not been researched and/or published in any medical journals that I could find. I have accepted that it should be deleted for this reason, but it is offensive to dismiss it as a hoax, urban legend, or illegitimate. All in all, know that it is a legitimate condition, but because of the lack of research, I support deletion, at this point. More research in the medical academia must be done to warrant an article, but DO NOT be so offensive to delete it as a hoax. So I choose to change my vote to delete. Gstridsigne (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources attesting to the existence of this phobia, at least under that name. ... discospinster _talk 17:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless serious references from reliable sources are produced. Anyone can get a Greek dictionary and make up phobias, and some of them get onto "Gosh, fancy that!" sites or "List of weird phobias" books, but we should not have an article unless there is solid, published evidence to show that this is a real condition which is taken seriously. That is particularly important for a medical subject. I have found a good deal of chat on Twitter and blogs and the like, but nothing reliable. Most significantly, there is no mention in Pubmed, and no mention in the NIH database. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that we should not have articles on random "disorders" that do not exist in medical literature, especially when the articles make conjectural medical claims. Without reliable sources to establish that this actually exists and is notable, we should simply leave the original research to Wikia and blogs. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies with spelling mistakes in their names[edit]

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

This article is fundamentally unsound because it applies nebulous and debatable rules of spelling and grammar to proper names, which simply cannot stand. There is no evidence that these are "mistakes" rather than intentional style choices, and we cannot assert that companies must adhere to any particular person's idea of what is "proper" and "improper" spelling or grammar. Strunk and White is not holy writ.

PROD was contested by the article creator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A whole bunch of SEO opinion that doesn't really address why this is such a sin for commercial operations. We're not Grammar Girl, folks. Nate • (chatter) 08:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does address why it's a sin - it causes a loss of revenue! There are many operations trying to encourage correct use of apostrophes and every English textbook I've used for GCSE all agree with me. At some point I'm going to go through and try and find some of them to source.--Laun chba ller 09:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A school grammar textbook is not a suitable source for defining a proper name as misspelled.

You are failing to recognize that there is no international arbiter of spelling, and what you claim as "misspelled" is, rather, an entirely intentional stylistic choice. Would you claim that eBay is "misspelled" because the first letter isn't capitalized? Is FedEx "misspelled" because it's been contracted with intercaps? This is silliness. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would - eBay should be ebay (eBay is short for electronic bay and why does 'bay' need to be capitalised?) and FedEx, as a conjunction, should be Fed'Ex.--Laun chba ller 13:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just proved my point. eBay is not "short for electronic bay" - as our eBay article helpfully explains, it was a domain name borrowed from one of the founder's other projects and is not an abbreviation of anything - it's effectively a made-up word. As for FedEx, nobody, and I mean nobody applies apostrophes to CamelCase words and to do so would be entirely original research. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, almost nobody. Or does the presence of the apostrophe make it non-camelcase? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to our impossibly-well-sourced CamelCase article, the apostrophe would make it non-CamelCase... then again, there's no international definition of CamelCase either, so who's to really say? What I meant is that no one has ever tried to apply an apostrophe to intentionally-CamelCased constructed words and proper names such as PowerPoint, iPhone or FedEx. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely agree that this article is basically flawed. Company founders can choose to spell the names of their company in whatever way they want, whatever the opinion of the Apostrophe Protection Society. Several of the other news articles used to create this article are talking about general spelling mistakes in company literature/websites. Sionk (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally useless list article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC) (What about the most obvious spelling mistake of them all, FCUK?)[reply]
Delete The Apostrophe Protection Society's campaign against Harrods might merit a line in their article, but this page seems to exist purely to puff their quixotic (to be kind) campaign to get more apostrophes into the world. A list article with 2 entries would generally be deleted at AfD purely on the basis that it's not a worthwhile list, regardless of the content. From its beginning this article has been about apostrophes rather than misspellings - the topic of misspelt words in company names does have some claim to notability[18][19][20]. But to write such an article I'd want to Blow it up and start over under a different title. I'm not even sure if misuse of the apostrophe counts as misspelling. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the history you will see that there were a LOT more than two entries there.--Laun chba ller 13:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A page containing a list of "misspelled" names without any authority defining "misspelling" is WP:Original research pretty much by definition. A page called List of companies with spelling mistakes according to XYZ where XYZ is a recognized authority on such things and - and this is key - such a list is itself notable - would be okay, but the article would have to be about the list, not the list itself. Having "the list itself" as a list-article might be okay if being on the list was somehow encyclopedic. For example, we have lists of sports teams that have won XYZ championships or who play for XYZ leagues, because such information is encyclopedic. Since we aren't talking about any particular XYZ spelling-authority, it's premature to say whether I would approve of a list of companies that this authority would consider having a "misspelled name." Come to think of it, I can't think of any recognized authority that has rules of what is and is not "correct spelling" in a proper name in the English Language, at least not one that is recognized in the United States. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a complete pointless article!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If e.g. SealSkinz says we are going to spell our name with a "z" and capitalise the second "S", then it is how they have decided to spell their name, and it is not a spelling mistake.Martin451 21:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective. There is no central authority on English spelling, and WP:LISTN requires that this concept itself be notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because of national variations in spelling and because it imposes an implied value judgement on the companies in question. Wikipedia is not a place for criticism of corporations. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Pal: International Military Tribunal for the Far East and Indian nationalism[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Only source is amazon ([21]). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 08:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, no coverage in reliable, third party sources, not even an article in the book's native language version of Wikipedia, which is certainly big enough and active enough for that to be a meaningful distinction (especially as it would be useful in deciding whether or not we're simply missing the sources because they're not in English or if there simply aren't any). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently this is just a chapter listing, and would have to be started over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 04:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 01:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I probably have to disagree with the general consensus, but I found very reliable sources. This is from the New York Times, this one from The Hindu, this journal from the Asiatic Society. The article is in a horrible state, I agree, but it is sure notable enough to be kept. I found many a source by a quick Googling. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Improved the article's condition. Marked it as a stub and added references. Ethically ^(Yours) 16:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In those 3 sources, I only see coverage for the Judge and why he is notable, I see no mention at all of this book. Tarc (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source says about it in the very beginning. Ethically ^(Yours) 07:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I see now. Well, as it mentions neither the author nor the book by name...and even if it did it would only have been a passing mention...it is insufficient in determining notability. Tarc (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources found by User:Ethically Yours are not significant coverage of the book, rather about Judge Pal, that mention the book in passing. If there are significant book reviews in Japanese that would be helpful. -- GreenC 18:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We need to know about the judge and the book. The references are sufficient.--DThomsen8 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, and I agree that there is no coverage in reliable, third party sources. This article should probably be merged into another article dealing with the topic at hand or be used as a bibliography citation for Indian Nationalism. BerkeleyLaw1979 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The judge is notable, but the book is not. There is evidence of significant coverage about the book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton Ryan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable adult film actor, does not meet WP:PORNBIO. While he has been nominated for adult film awards, he has not won any. Article has been the subject of repeated BLP violations, the most recent of which was directed at a person unrelated to the article subject and was in place for months. Risker (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 20. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Offline 08:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's quite accurate analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the nominator. Finnegas (talk) 10:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Campus Network[edit]

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

Pure press release, and the style indicates an almost certain copyvio DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a single hit on Google News, which doesn't bode well for its notability. Ravenswing 07:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and maybe speedy delete due to WP:G12 for copyright infringement) - Looks like this article was created and extensively edited by users with a conflict of intetrest: created by Mcnpartners, edited 40 times by SamVaghar (see the org's Our Team Page). For copyright violations see 1, 2, and 3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 01:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied as copyvio by RHaworth. Peridon (talk) 11:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

30 Minutes Book Series[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this book in multiple reliable sources per WP:NBOOK. Google search only brings up entries in book seller web sites. Proposed deletion contested. ... discospinster _talk 04:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged this as a speedy deletion for a copyvio because it's copied from the official bookjacket, but even without the copyvio this is still a very non-notable book series. I always feel for the indies and self-published books, but that doesn't mean that they get a free pass. This book isn't notable in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like it comes from a pay-to-publish outfit. Different to lulu and AuthorHouse in that there appears to be some responsibility for the marketing, but there are charges for printing, binding, proofing and editing that a mainline publisher would deal with themselves as part of the overall deal. Sometimes stuff like this makes it to notability, but there's nothing given to indicate this. Just a set of blurbs that in the absence of notability indications are probably to be regarded as promotional. I wish the author luck, but I rather feel that he'll need it. Peridon (talk) 11:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, either a different Moore, or a hoax.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And Justice for All (1998 film)[edit]

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

Tagged as hoax. Has an entry in IMDB but I've been unable to locate reliable sources to establish that this film actually exists, just listings on various third party filmographies. See also talk page comments: "Not listed on his website. No press about it. This may quite possibly have been a typo/hoax/something else that's been repeated often enough to be assumed to be true." Can anyone locate sources to establish this film exists? Muchness (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. IMDb has a list of the winners and nominees for the 1998 IDA Awards, and the film is among the latter, so it does appear to exist. However, that's about the extent of the coverage I've been able to find. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Clarityfiend. Corvoe (speak to me) 09:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not listed on his website. No press about it. This may quite possibly have been a typo/hoax/something else that's been repeated often enough to be assumed to be true. Barnstar for the anonymous editor who tagged it as a hoax, WP:TROUT for me not being brave enough to delete the article when it was first tagged for speedy deletion. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC) Erm, and also, what Muchness said. Didn't properly check before adding !vote. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Delete due to not meeting WP:GNG. Variety here mentions And Justice for All as a feature nominee for an IDA award. Beyond this, I can only find choice mentions, which is so strange to me, considering the director. Delete due to lack of any significant coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for a film by a famous director this seems remarkably unsourceable outside of its presence on an award shortlist. I have a theory, however: given that The Big One was released the same year as this purported film, I'm wondering if maybe And Justice for All — a title that's certainly compatible with the themes and topics of The Big One — wasn't just a working title for The Big One, which has persisted in showing up in some filmographies just because somebody somewhere didn't realize that its title had changed. Or, alternatively, given that IMDB calls it a television documentary, maybe it was a project that got recut into The Awful Truth, which debuted the following year, instead of ever being released under its original name. Or, of course, it could have just been a project that got scrapped entirely...or one which, unlikely though it may seem, was actually made by a different Michael Moore of much lesser notability and sourceability. Delete (or redirect if someone can find evidence that my "working title" theory is on the money.) Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A film does seem to exist by that name directed by a "Micahel Moore", as confirmed by the 1998 volume of the International Documentary Association, but we can't even be sure it's the same Micahel Moore. I've often seen IMDB filmographies link to the wrong person and Moore doesn't seem to acknowledge it any way. Aside from the whole question of notability, this could be a case of IMDb making a mistake and everyone else copying it, so we need to be careful about spreading misinformation. Unless we can corroborate it, it needs to go. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep; consensus is that she scrapes by with an independent claim of notability. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Haden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Though I am not a big fan of the WP:BLP1E argument, it seems clear to me that this woman is not notable outside of being married to Jack Black, and thus that this article is indeed a BLP1E. If there is any content here that cannot already be found at her husband's article, we should just merge it there (since it will almost certainly be about Black marrying her). Jinkinson talk to me 04:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have just realized that this article has been nominated for deletion twice before. The first discussion closed as "no consensus", and the second was speedy closed because it was made too soon after the first. In any case, in these previous debates, some voters observed, correctly, that notability is not inherited from being related to someone who is famous. Jinkinson talk to me 04:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been searching, but it is tough to find anything about her other than articles about her wedding or her pregnancies. I did find a little about her in Musician (issue 212–217), 1996. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Member of multiple seemingly notable groups: The Hayden Triplets [22], Let's Go Sailing [23]; also associated with Charlie Haden and that dog as noted by the Musician article cited above. 78.19.9.121 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I understand the rationale for the nomination, but i think she makes it thru WP:GNG. what's a bit crazy is that due to her celebrity marriage, it crowds out most of her other coverage, and if she wasn't married to black we'd probably find it easier to say she's notable. But this is certainly a better case for notability than something like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Larson (3rd nomination), where the connection to the celebrity is the only real argument for meeting GNG. (Larson was later deleted at a fourth afd.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hopefully the additions that were just made will help to clarify her career as a visual artist, cellist, and vocalist apart from her marriage to Jack Black. 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Crowley (biotech executive)[edit]

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

Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 02:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: No deletion reason given. Kolbasz (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Multiple independent references which are already in the article show notability. Acb314 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - notability clearly established by sources. ukexpat (talk) 13:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harvard and BusinessWeek are WP:RS There are enough sources to establish some degree of notabilitity for the subject. The Business week source has expired but there is also a clear one by the Daily Telegraph --Artene50 (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ontario Highway 401. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Basketweave[edit]

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

I hate to do this, because I was hoping to upgrade this article to be better. Unfortunately, I've been confounded by the absolute lack of sources on this topic. Aside from very brief mentions on Self-published roadgeek sites, a couple traffic camera names, and a label on a mapbook, there is no coverage of this. It's just a fancy highway transfer, variants of which appear on any local-express freeway setup.

So, with notability in question and few if any reliable sources to validate it, I'm nominating this for deletion. Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sources, trivial. Still warrants coverage in the individual road articles. Dough 48 72 02:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The actual "Basketweave" transfer on Highway 401 is mentioned and pictured in that article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:37, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge most of the salvageable content to Ontario Highway 401, the section "Highway 427" to Ontario Highway 427, and the section "Outside of Canada" to the relevant articles about the A2 motorway (Netherlands) and A4 motorway (Netherlands). Then, redirect to Ontario Highway 401, or reformulate it as a disambiguation page if warranted. Mind matrix 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there are some references naming the basketweave, for example The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English: A-I, Highway 401 Corridor Traffic Systems Management Study: Problem identification, and many of the 208 mentions in Toronto Star archives (eg - Road closings and transit changes in the GTA for the coming week in 2006). Mind matrix 15:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of these actually discuss it, or just make passing mention? I just used my Toronto Star Archive access to check for Basketweave AND "Highway 401" and got 10 results. Of these, about half were regarding traffic closures. Another quarter regarding homes for sale. One or two were regarding "trouble spots" on the 401, of which the Basketweave was named as one of them (this appears to be the case for the traffic management document as well). I honestly hope we do find something tangible, but my outlook is bleak. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just sampled a few when I was searching for refs, and only the abstracts at that, so I'm not sure. If nothing else, these could be used to support a claim that the name is used in traffic reports. The MTO is likely to have a few reports discussing or mentioning the basketweave in its library. (Even if such sources are find, the article should still be merged.) Mind matrix 20:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly merits mention in the highway articles, but I'd have to agree that it probably doesn't really need its own standalone article. Merge whatever's salvageable and referenceable to the highways themselves. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Highway 401. --Admr Boltz 00:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything possible to ON 401's article. T C N7JM 01:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, Highway 401 already mentions this feature... but I won't be adding information myself to Highway 427, since there would have to be some source calling it a "basketweave". The European roads can probably use any information they can get. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 02:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ramp Industry[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I added a couple of references that at least confirm campaigns which involved this former firm, but their role in these and in general does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: When I started this article it was amidst a large row on the company's marketing methods. It's consigned to history now. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nationwide Building Society. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Derbyshire IFS[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nationwide Building Society. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Stewart Hawkpoint[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find routine acquisition coverage but nothing to indicate that this brokerage was notable. AllyD (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clubfinance[edit]

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

This is an advert. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An intermediary firm with passing mention in articles about particular investments but no evidence of coverage in its own right as per WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bankruptcy Protection Fund Limited[edit]

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

This is an advert. Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a couple of articles from this firm's lifespan as External Links, but neither they nor anything else indicates notability. AllyD (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of passing company notability. Possible spam. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tier 1 Asset Management[edit]

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

Not notable. Article is an advert. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A firm going about its business, no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smart currency exchange[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - it lacks even an assertion of notability. Run of the mill company. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected.co.uk[edit]

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article previously survived CSD because of awards, the main one being the 3rd place in the Sunday Times Techtrack 100 in 2008. However that award went to Netbasic, with whom protected.co.uk have a relationship [24] but the award can't be inherited by this particular price comparison portal. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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