< 30 November	2 December >

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amílcar Alves[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only two of the top tier fights required to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Both fights were losses and it does not look like a new opportunity will come soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Allman[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and only four fights total (record of 3-1). Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Far from notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Aldana[edit]

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

Has only 2 top tier fights so fails to meet WP:NMMA. Also lacks the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Both are losses and it does not look like there will be another chance soon.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this one based on the nomination rationale. If a better rationale can be found - notability, etc, then perhaps a renomination is appropriate. Let's improve before we delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kote anjaneya[edit]

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

This article is mostly some kind of legendary story. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore. And that would be a reason to delete all Category:Mythology. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not sure what sources there might be outside of English, but this book has at least some discussion of the topic, although I'm not sure if it's sufficient to be "significant coverage". The above recommendation to purge Category:Mythology is a non-starter. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep Article needs serious work, but the reason for deletion should be rejected. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chumlee[edit]

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

Cool guy, not notable apart from the show. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENTERTAINER. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable for being the breakout character of that series, and as a result, has developed a secondary career in making paid public appearances, and has appeared in other media, including merchandising and an episode of the TV show iCarly. This easily qualifies him for notability. I've added five secondary sources to the article to support the breakout character issue, in addition to the other couple of secondary sources that were already in the article. In addition, he does indeed have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following, as his merchandise regularly outsells that of the other characters on the show, which satisfies Criterion #2 under WP:ENTERTAINER. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Nightscream. He's gotten plenty of press coverage, like this article today, which devotes several paragraphs to him. Is this you, Old Man? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like pretty solid referencing. I wouldn't have thought there would be all that much to say about him, but it's a decent article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copy and paste copyvio text dump from this source. postdlf (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of United Arab Emirates controlled substances[edit]

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

I am not sure if this list have any encyclopedic qualities. It is just a list of substances. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 00:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Gibbs (schoolboy)[edit]

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

Two sentence stub about a child who committed suicide. One of the two references (the one available online) simply notes the suicide. The other (to which I don't have access to verify) apparently states that there was an inquiry by the British government. This is not enough to satisfy notability requirements. Horologium (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The death of this person was a sensation at the time - that's why there was a government commission of enquiry. There were questions in the House and press coverage such as this. Notability does not expire and there are obvious alternatives to deletion. The nomination does not seem compliant with our deletion policy. Warden (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Warden. It's nice to do so from time to time. Yes, the article needs expansion, but it contains sufficient verifiable notability to remain.. Fiddle Faddle 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would be perfectly content with renaming it to the child's suicide. That is the notable aspect, not the child himself. Fiddle Faddle 13:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete All references given - both of them in the article (one can search the second one for the mention: [1]) and the one above from the Spectator - are on the school, not the boy, who gets only the briefest mention in each. Not the significant coverage needed for the GNG. This may merit a mention in Christ's Hospital as part of its history but there's not enough on the boy for a standalone article by a long way.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a good source here. Whether or not the boy is notable his suicide certainly seems to be. Moving the page ~~to The suicide of William Gibbs~~ would be one option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As pointed out there is very clear evidence that the suicide of this boy passes GNG, and in any case something that results in a Parliamentary Inquiry will always be notable (if it were not notable at the time there would have been no inquiry, and the report of an inquiry itself creates notability). The relevant document is the report of the Christ's Hospital Inquiry Commission 1877. I agree that The suicide of William Gibbs would seem to be the best title, though if somebody has access to the report itself then a better alternative might emerge. But those are editing matters. --AJHingston (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to death of William Gibbs (not the suicide of William Gibbs, we shouldn't overemphasise the sui- part and the the isn't required.). There is a reference in The Times (Christ's Hospital. (News) The Times Saturday, Aug 11, 1877; pg. 8; Issue 29018; col A ) which gives further details. Basically, it seems the boy committed suicide after receiving unfair discipline as a pupil of the English public school system, which was notoriously tough - "if it doesn't kill you it will make you stronger" attitude that inevitably a few thrived in and a few failed in. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Suicide of William Gibbs. Sufficient sources have now been identified to meet WP:GNG. I take the point that normally we wouldn't want to over-emphasise the suicide part particularly in the case of relatively recent deaths when we have the feelings of relatives to consider. However, 136 years on this is now a historical event and had it not been suicide it wouldn't have been notable. Therefore, I don't see any real benefit in obfuscating the key issue. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harlequin Romance novels[edit]

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

None of the novels in this list are notable first publications. I dont think more than a half dozen authors are notable. While i like the idea of listing less notable works by publisher, the books have to have some cultural note to deserve such a list. ACE books has a lot of notable works, so a complete list, List of Ace double novels can be justified. Im sorry to AFD such a thorough list, obviously a labor of love. there are also no references, which i hope could be fixed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was tinkering with the idea of individual lists, but notice that no ISBNs exist pre-1970s and that each and all later ones can be sourced to ISBNs making referencing redundant. Harlequin is a leading and prominent publisher for women in over 110 international markets and in 31 languages and has over 1000 authors, some of which are "New York Times Bestselling Authors" like Sylvia Day.[2] I'm not going to say everyone with a Harlequin publication is notable, even if they get local attention for it.[3] Though this is a comprehensive list of its publications and whether Harlequin's books as a whole are notable and the list serves a purpose is the bar for inclusion. So what if Agatha Christie or Doyle's works were reprinted in the list? So what if not every author is independently notable - removing them would ruin the usability and comprehensiveness of the list. Considering all the hundreds of millions of books Harlequin has sold in this line - I'm going to say it should be keep. I'd split it and source them to WorldCat and ISBNs (for post-1970s) if it wouldn't completely break the page - and add novel summaries. Right now, the list is too big to cover in detail and is already on the list of longest pages before introducing ISBNs as references. Parsed out to full, the page size would eclipse 3-5 MB with that information and adding 100-150 word summary of each book could double it. If you insist upon redundant referencing double that again, but Worldcat or ISBN to cite a book is its own reference for existence in a way - and its easily verified from Wiki with a single click. I'm not happy until this list is more useful and complete. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsure as to why this is up for deletion DeusImperator (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a directory, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Just because data exists, doesnt mean we need to host it. The books as a whole are entirely notable. the individual titles are almost completely ephemeral. We do list all the issues of TV Guide, as each sold phenomenally well (i believe the circulation of TV Guide was upwards of 6 million per weekly issue), but mostly because they feature a notable cover for each issue. we dont list the contents, which are not notable. we list all the Rolling Stone magazine appearances of celebrities on the cover, but grouped by person, not a chronological list of all issues. What vital, encyclopedic information is conveyed here? I can see shorter summary lists, or a list of notable works, but the whole thing? this belongs at another website.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is not backed by what you claim it is. You are equating a literal "TV Guide" publication against a series of novels and trying to equate it to "not directory", that's a misdirection. "WP:TVGuide" indicates Electronic program guide under criterion 4, but this is no way related to or applicable to novels. A list of novels listed in a series lends itself to more to a "list of episodes" by comparison. It may not be Law & Order or List of Case Closed episodes (seasons 1–15), but the grouping is notable and it makes perfect sense to list the publications in order, the name of the book and its author. I'd like to go further with Worldcat and ISBN and short summaries, but this AFD confuses that the whole is notable and the individual books as non-notable typically implies that a list of the notable whole is fine whereas standalone articles for the non-notable are not. And your comparison for Rolling Stone covers is rather weak when we do not even have comparable coverage of National Geographic (magazine) let alone its content. For magazine in general, as they are a collection of articles released in a timely manner there is very limited value in a list that is reliably published under the same name every month. Compare like things please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

granted, im comparing apples to oranges. however, i still see no evidence that the individual books have any notability. nat geo and rs issues can be used as references. many other novel series are about notable characters, studied in detail (star trek). these are cookie cutter novels, by mostly nonnotable authors, with no recurring characters. If people want to keep it, i wont fight it, but i see no evidence it should be here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This particular series is so notable that it needs to be covered to this extent. The "directory"" argument would make more sense if applied to an attempt to write extensive individual articles on each of the novels, which might indeed be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 07:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, with information about the concept of a "Harlequin Romance" in the lede... I'm sure there have been studies on the topic in general, and it's certainly entered the vernacular. Per WP:CSC something like this is fine; it's not quite dissimilar to a writer's bibliography or an artists filmography/discography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'd suggest splitting based on either year of release or title. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this will allow me to better develop the page and provide both the citations and summary and notes of the more unusual instances. The end result of such work would result in it being the largest page on Wikipedia at 8-9 MB and equivalent to over 1200 pages long if one were to print it out. I did not realize I would run into such problems when I started the list and I noticed that many of the individual authors are weakly notable, but at this time probably should not be given their own pages. A top down approach is required here. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou (NSCC-GZ)[edit]

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

One-sentence stub about the building that hosts the Tianhe-1A supercomputer and someday will host the Tianhe-2. There, I just gave you the text of the article. This building has received no attention whatsoever from secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a directory of non-notable buildings. Coretheapple (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too many problems. Not even sure if it is precisely a building, or an organization? In English the verb "hosts" is ambiguous. If it is a building, to be notable of course someone would need to have published an article somewhere about, say, how many square meters of floor space it had, or if some notable architect designed it, etc. I do not read Chinese and the web site Google translation is not clear. Also the title is not per style, with the acronym tacked on the end in parentheses. Finally it appears to be already out-dated. It uses future tense (see WP:CRYSTAL policy!) for an event that supposedly happened in November 2013, which is now in the past. The topic might be notable some day, and would be nice to have covered to help with the general US and Europe bias in the English Wikipedia, but if so I would suggest naming an article National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou as essentially a merge of Tianhe-I and Tianhe-2 (inconsistent numerical notation?). On the other hand, National University of Defense Technology might be the best place for the merged article, since it already is essentially just an overview of the two Tianhe articles and some other historical background. Or keep the separate computer articles and have National Supercomputing Center in Guangzhou redirect to National University of Defense Technology until they become independently notable. W Nowicki (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Razak Al-Hassan[edit]

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

Two top tier fights is not enough to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above. Both were losses and it does not look like there will be a chance again soonPeter Rehse (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Gormley[edit]

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

Two top tier fights (both first round losses) is not enough to meet WP:NMMA. The coverage appears to fail WP:GNG as just routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Meets the G11 criteria for deletion as wholly promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Bourbon Liqueur[edit]

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

Not notable. No evidence of awards or in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The main refs are local interview-based pieces with no sign of independent fact checking or editorial review. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Stuart and others. Mystic is rapidly gaining a HUGE following in the Triangle and now in Charlotte and many outlying counties (something which we've avoided mentioning because it would come across as puffery). The local press has looked carefully at the company and product, and the press doesn't usually do a lot of independent reporting when there isn't any controversy over the facts. If you would delete Mystic, I would respectfully suggest that you would first need to delete such pages as Sweet Revenge (liqueur) and Hideous (liqueur) to name but a few. I would also suggest that there is intrinsic value in having regional specialties covered in a project with Wikipedia's scope, even if the U.S. national press hasn't gotten around to covering them before inclusion.Blitzlaw (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Sweet Revenge (liqueur) is already tagging as possibly not notable (the first step towards deletion) and I have just tagged Hideous (liqueur). Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Aina[edit]

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

BLP with no references about an MMA fighter who doesn't meet WP:NMMA. The only link is to his fight record. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MAGIC![edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a new band who have yet to release their first album and thus fail WP:NMUSIC at the present time. I speedied the first iteration of this article yesterday, following which the creator reposted it and then made a vaguely threatening "how dare you interfere" post — including a complete repetition of the entire article — to my talk page, so I'm taking this to AFD instead so that I have backup. Of course, I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if somebody can demonstrate that there are actually enough genuinely reliable sources already out there about this band to Heymann it up to a keepable standard within the discussion period. But as the article currently stands, it's a delete. Albeit without prejudice against future recreation if and when the sources and the notability claim can be suitably beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just for the record, it's now come to my attention that one of the band members, Nasri (songwriter), already has his own separate Wikipedia article — and while it does still need some improvement, his basic notability isn't really in question. I still don't think that there's quite enough evidence of notability or sourcing for the band to have a standalone article yet, but it might be a better solution to redirect the band's article to his for the time being, until enough sourcing about the band can be added to support spinning it back out on its own. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteDoes not meet WP:MUSIC. Dlohcierekim 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A New article can be written when they get around to being famous/infamous. DeusImperator (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

SCAD World School, Palladam[edit]

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 00:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article has failed to verify its sources! No references to verify the existence! --ChinnZ (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a secondary school. Secondary schools are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a high school per precedent documented at WP:OUTCOMES#SCHOOLS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applit[edit]

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

No significance .... Yankeeeye (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly CSD A7. A start-up firm, less than 2 months old; CEO is Sarthak Sethi, article creator is a WP:SPA User:Ssarthak598, indicating likely conflict of interest. No evidence found that the firm is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saw characters#Jill Tuck. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Tuck[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. No sources attest to the notability of the character separate from the films in which she appears. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's all just plot. I do not see any coverage in reliable sources. The character does not seem notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect to List of Saw characters#Jill Tuck. Lacks enough coverage for a separate article, but we can at least send readers to where it is reasonable to find her listed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 07:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Saw Characters#Lawrence Gordon. SarahStierch (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Gordon (Saw)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lawrence Gordon (Saw) (2nd nomination)

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

No sourcing that indicates this fictional character is notable independent of the film series. Mentions in reliable sources are in terms of plot details/summaries. Article was AFDed previously with consensus to merge to List of Saw characters but that was undone without discussion and the article has been tagged for three years for lacking sources. Article fails WP:NOT, WP:GNG, WP:FICT. Delete and salt to prevent re-creation. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to prevent the material from coming back. Fails WP:GNG - the only sources mentioning this character are plot summaries which are unsuitable as secondary coverage. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect sounds good to me. I don't see any evidence of notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saw Characters#Lawrence Gordon. lacking enough coverage for a separate article, we can at least send readers to where it is logical for this character to be listed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Feel free to renominate if so desire. I encourage people to expand and improve first. SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HeavyWeight Yoga[edit]

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

This is a purely promotional article for Abby Lenz--apparently the neologism is due to her--note the coincidence of her trademark with the title of the article. I am not convinced that yoga when practiced by overweight people is a separate encyclopedic topic. FWIW, this was actually accepted at AfC, and by an experienced editor, whom I have notified. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a promotional article. A Google search of the topic makes it clear that "HeavyWeight" is a brand-name, rather than a specific and distinct type of Yoga. Further complicating matters is that research supports yoga as an effective treatment for obesity. ^[1] However, I could find no support for the idea that obese individuals need any special type of yoga, including "HeavyWeight" yoga. The "sources" cited in the article are relatively weak, either being linked to Lenz, who has the majority stake in "HeavyWieght" yoga's success, or random blogs, often cited multiple times. Even the articles cited in this article refer to "HeavyWeight" yoga as "making yoga accessible to plus-sized men and women." It's just yoga, marketed to obese people. If it deserves mention at all, while I believe it does not, it would be on the Yoga page. SaffronOlive ( talk ) 21:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This is genuine and notable yoga practice. HeavyWeight Yoga was a part of the documentary "All of Me," 2013's documentary audience award winner at the Austin Film Festival. It's a film about obesity and weight loss surgery included in the PBS Independent Lens series for 2013-14. Lentz is on a panel this week conducted by KLRU TV in Austin. Civic Summit: Obesity, Weight Loss and Body Acceptance explores the complex issues and experiences surrounding obesity and weight loss. The panel is hosted by a CNN reporter Seema Mathur. http://www.klru.org/blog/category/civic-summit/ Existing references include the "Yoga Beyond Fitness: Getting More Than Exercise from an Ancient Spiritual Practice" book by Tom Pilarzyk. US News and World Report supports the idea that obese individuals need special yoga. http://health.usnews.com/health-news/health-wellness/articles/2013/04/10/yoga-for-people-who-are-overweight-or-obese The sources for the article include newspapers, American Fitness magazine reporting, Pilarzyk's textbook, and health reports from major network TV affiliates. During drafts of the article, a Wiki editor said "The problem right now is not sourcing - the sourcing is great!" The article's language was adjusted to a more encyclopedic tone.

As for the comment about "random blogs," I don't know what that means; One of the cited blogs is operated by the Orlando Sentinel. Obese individuals need a special type of yoga, including "HeavyWeight" yoga." Any other comment here ignores the challenge of any student in a yoga class who tops 300 pounds. These people cannot get a starting point to use this ancient practice, because of their body size, using regular yoga practice. "Can you come up to standing from the floor?" Many obese people cannot, but this condition gets treated in a HeavyWeight Yoga class. Inversions, for example, are seriously contra-indicated. Comment upon the article: Gene93k says that "It's just yoga, marketed to obese people." Where are the sources for that statement? It appears to be an opinion written by a person who's not overweight/obese and practicing yoga. Brand-name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikram_Yoga is also a brand name, but no one wants to sweep that article out of Wikipedia. While this article went through several editions during its vetting, I began to wonder if some sort of size-ism was going on during the editing process. Obesity is an epidemic in Western countries that's killing millions. This practice is unique in its language and its modifications of the 24 foundational poses. I submit that a certified (yes, 200 hours) yoga-trained editor would be the best judge for the uniqueness of the aspects of this practice. Ronseybold (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only I am not convinced (like the nominator) that the topic is sufficiently notable on its own to merit a separate article on Wikipeida, but I am convinced that the specific trademark name that is the title of this article does not merit its own article. If anything needs to be salvaged, merge it with another article. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An experienced WP editor has reported this is a well-referenced article. None of the sources used in this article are press release-based. Like so much else on WP, it's sourced from print and online reliable sources. Metro-grade dailies like the Orlando newspaper, which publishes its reports on a blog, for example.

This article began its name as a style of yoga, rather than the name of its founder. It's notable, but it's also new. Not so new that it hasn't already been noted by 3rd party independent published reliable sources. A practice of yoga that opens up that discipline of health to an endangered populace is notable. I hope there are very few WP editors who believe teaching obese people yoga is unworthy of a report in the world's largest encyclopedia. Again, use of a trademark as an article name is so commonplace on WP as to be expected. Names are trademarked to protect their creators. No, the article title was chosen not promote the trademark, but to identify this explicit practice of yoga.

The independent third parties have done their work to discuss this topic in its own right. This has been a one-year quest (so far) to get this topic included in WP -- and deleting it on the basis of trademark use looks inappropriate while I read the rest of WP....Ronseybold (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clint Godfrey[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only 2 of the 3 required top tier fights (both losses). Since he hasn't fought in almost 3 years it seems unlikely he'll get that third fight. Papaursa (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 17. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Julio Gallegos[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights and the article's only references are to his web page, facebook, and twitter. He doesn't meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far from notable - as per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Feel free to improve, expand, or renominate for deletion if so desired. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavi (actress)[edit]

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

I was unable to verify any of the content here. IMDB lists three actors known as Pallavi and none appear to be this one. That may be a limitation of IMDB, but I couldn't find reliable sources to use in this article. It is entirely unsourced and if she did prove to be notable would need a fundamental rewrite. Michig (talk) 14:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting case! The article is written in such a promotional tone, that it is difficult to take anything it says at face value. The facts, if true, would make the subject easily notable per WP:NACTOR, but I am having a hard time conforming them using non-wikipedia sources. I'll leave a note at India prject noticeboard to see if editors more familiar with Indian film related articles and sources have better luck. Even if retained, the article will need considerable de-crufting and clean-up. Abecedare (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Notable actress in South India during the 1980s. The article mentions that Kumudam, a leading Tamil magazine published an issue on her. Articles badly written doesn't necessarily mean that they should be done away with. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we need to be able to verify that she satisfies our notability guidelines. The article has been here for five years without any sources. --Michig (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about her on Hindu and one more which am not very sure. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

neither being an animal rights supporter nor being a political campaigner as described in those Hindu articles come anywhere near the threshold of Notability. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There simply isn't enough reliable sources to meet GNG and i don't feel those sources indicate enough notability.Blethering Scot 18:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete if the claims made in the original version were true, she would certainly meet the notability requirements. However, none of those claims appear to actually be verifiable and simply making promotional claims does not meet WP:GNG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will easily pass WP:NACTOR. There are quite a few movies linking to article. Unverifiable claims can be removed and replaced with a Filmography section. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Sharar[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. No significant coverage in reliable sources found. There are a few mentions, e.g. here and here, but not enough to establish notability. Michig (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not enough reliable sources available to meet WP:GNG.Blethering Scot 18:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Schockman[edit]

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

Only 2 top tier fights, thus failing to meet WP:NMMA, and lacks the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMMA and GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two top tier fights were to different organizations and both were losses - chance of a third chance nil.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel Cell Bus Club[edit]

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

This article refers to a defunct organization that may not even have been notable in its time. None of the cited references are still available, and it has been years since any substantial contribution has been made to the article. Dan Griscom (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These were trial public transport projects that successfully completed. The defunct websites shouldn't worry us. I think for history, we should preserve it, in case fuel cell transport becomes more common early pioneering programs will be notable. Information about the projects here.[4] Some updated history here.[5] When searching on the project names found other sources. I've updated the article so it's apparent the projects are completed. I think they should be kept together as one article not separate articles since they trialed the same technology and were done in co-ordination sharing data and partners. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The defunct websites would worry me even if not defunct, as they are not independent of the subject. That said, such a project strikes me as the kind of thing that is likely to be notable, and could probably be reliably sourced. Maybe it belongs under another title? --Yeti Hunter (talk) 05:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. this link provided by Green Cardamom looks like a blog or non-independent source at best. we need third party coverage like major newspapers which is sorely lacking. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some sources follow.

Mason, Deirdre. "EU fuel cell bus trial extended transport for London Britain--low emissions public transport." International News Services Mar. 2006. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
"TOWARDS TOMORROW." Sun-Herald [Sydney, Australia] 9 Nov. 2003: 33. Infotrac Newsstand. Web. 19 Nov. 2013.
Peter Hoffmann. "The Hydrogen Power Rush". The World & I, October 2002
"Iceland: Long days, hot nights - MENTAL FLOSS". Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ) - Sunday, July 30, 2006
Kris Christen. "Europe's CUTE project for hydrogen-fuel-cell buses deemed a success", Environmental Science & Technology. 8/1/2006, Vol. 40 Issue 15, p4541-4541.
"UK trails fuel cell buses", Power Engineer. Feb/Mar 2004, Vol. 18 Issue 1
Maack, Maria H.; Skulason, Jon Bjorn. "Implementing the hydrogen economy", Journal of Cleaner Production. Jan 2006, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p52-64. 13p. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.05.027.
Petrović, Jelica; Ivković, Ivan; Vujačić, Ivan; Žeželj, Srećko. "POSSIBILITIES OF BUSES ON ALTERNATIVE FUEL IN PUBLIC URBAN TRANSPORT IN BELGRADE", Technological & Economic Development of Economy. 2009, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p78-89.
COCKROFT, COLIN J.; OWEN, ANTHONY D. "The Economics of Hydrogen Fuel Cell Buses", Economic Record. Dec 2007, Vol. 83 Issue 263, p359-370. 12p. 10 Charts. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.2007.00426.x.
"EUROPEAN FUEL CELL BUS PROJECT EXTENDED BY ONE YEAR", Clean Air & Environmental Quality. May2006, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p22-22.
Maack, Maria; Skulason, Jon. "HOT ROCKS AND HYDROGEN", Power Engineer. Feb2003, Vol. 17 Issue 1, p14.
Saxe, M.; Folkesson, A.; Alvfors, P. "Energy system analysis of the fuel cell buses operated in the project: Clean Urban Transport for Europe", Energy. May2008, Vol. 33 Issue 5, p689-711. 23p. DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2008.01.001.
Carvalho, Luís; Mingardo, Giuliano; Van Haaren, Jeroen. "Green Urban Transport Policies and Cleantech Innovations: Evidence from Curitiba, Göteborg and Hamburg", European Planning Studies. Mar2012, Vol. 20 Issue 3, p375-396. 22p. DOI: 10.1080/09654313.2012.651801.
Stolzenburg, K.; Tsatsami, V.; Grubel, H. "Lessons learned from infrastructure operation in the CUTE project", International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Aug2009, Vol. 34 Issue 16, p7114-7124. 11p. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.06.035
Haraldsson, K.; Folkesson, A.; Alvfors, P., "Fuel cell buses in the Stockholm CUTE project—First experiences from a climate perspective", Journal of Power Sources. Aug2005, Vol. 145 Issue 2, p620-631. 12p. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2004.12.081.
Vidueira, J.M.; Contreras, A.; Veziroglu, T.N. "PV autonomous installation to produce hydrogen via electrolysis, and its use in FC buses", International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Sep2003, Vol. 28 Issue 9, p927. 11p. DOI: 10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00191-X
"Fuel cell buses arrive in London, just Porto to go", Fuel Cells Bulletin. Jan2004, Vol. 2004 Issue 1, p1. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S1464-2859(04)00039-2.
"Conference wraps up CUTE, next programs", Fuel Cells Bulletin. Jul2006, Vol. 2006 Issue 7, p10-10. 1p. DOI: 10.1016/S1464-2859(06)71128-2.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

how many of these sources talk about the trials in detail. they seem mostly science based press, how about something in mainstream press? LibStar (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be useful references, but they don't seem to be generally available (in fact most are pretty obscure, and none seem Internet-available). Unless someone with access to them (you?) adds them to the article, indicating why each bolsters the notability of Fuel Cell Bus Club, they don't have any value. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please use WP:REX to verify. Sources don't need to be added to the article for determining the notability of a topic. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The trials in London were well known being covered for example by the BBC. Bearing in mind especially the extent of the trials, in many parts of the world, they pass for notability and the initiative is one that can suitably have its own article. I am sure it could be expanded. --AJHingston (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom added a long list of references above, but I'm still dubious. None of the titles mentions the topic of the article in question. Four of them mention CUTE, but that just bolsters the notability of a potential CUTE article. Without further evidence that these articles mention Fuel Cell Bus Club, let alone support its notability, I don't understand what place they have in this discussion. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The projects existed under semi-autonomous control, thus the sources approach them as individual projects within their regions. However the projects were connected, using the same technology and vendors and co-operative sharing of data, it makes sense to group them into a single article, there was an agreement framework that brought them together. The title of the article is a placeholder and less important, renaming can be done if there was consensus for a rename. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Crow Mother (band)[edit]

The result was KEEP by default as there was no consensus for deletion even after two relistings. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability? Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 22:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add sources and clean up; passes WP:NBAND since they won LMT summer sound festival 2013 as well as the 2012 Red Bull competition. [6] Alex^{discussion ★} 13:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reina de Quito[edit]

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

Non-notable, only working link is to facebook. JesseRafe (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 16:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability; already adequately covered in the Fiestas de Quito article which was created a few minutes later, though it is problematic in itself for its lack of references. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sarah Wilson (dog trainer)[edit]

The result was KEEP. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 01:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The BLP does not meet wiki notability criteria ..... Wikianoldie (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. General notability guidelines are easily met. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 14:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Cindy. Just do a Google search. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nobre clothings[edit]

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

No significance of the company has been indicated. . Wikianoldie (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Significance ? Wikianoldie (talk) 16:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. How can you just delete a article about a important company? It has invented many marketing tools. I advice you to please re consider your decision. This will be a act of discouragement for indian companies. Preceding comment added by User:Kingofnagpur
significance of the company has been indicated important part of indian industry. It is Notable and with many references.. . The company invented many tools of marketing which are used by many other companies around the world like S.I.B, net concept etc. If this article isdeleted it will be a huge mistake and like humiliating indian garment industry. Preceding comment added by User:Kingofnagpur
Comment The article text claims in one place that the firm was founded in 1956 but then goes into detail about it being a 2013 start-up. Neither is evidenced though the 2013 copyright on their website indicates the latter date. AllyD (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this firm has attained notability. AllyD (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG no reliable third party sources, could have been speedy deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted A7. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Elie Schoumann[edit]

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

I do not find any significance/ notability .... Wikianoldie (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No indication of notability, no coverage in independent sources. Hqb (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. Reliable source coverage not found in search. The article's only reference is a link to a self-publishing website. Tagged A7. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably CSD A7. The subject appears to have only published a short story online (101 reads); no evidence that he meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Garrett[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO as he has not won "a well-known and significant industry award" & WP:GNG as has not "received any significant coverage in reliable sources". Finnegas (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Finnegas (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only a minor award win. I found one page of coverage in a book, but that's not enough to pass GNG. No substantial biographical information found. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gene93K. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tox (software)[edit]

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

Under-referenced article about unreleased software. The only reliable independent source is a minor news blog, which is insufficient to meet WP:NSOFTWARE. The article contained WP:BLP violations sourced to forum comments, before I removed them. - Mr X 14:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 14:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is insufficient at this point. Steven Walling • talk 22:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - software article of unclear notability. 'SiliconAngle' source is the only RS independent reference in the article, and a search did not turn up additional RS coverage. Also, created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Todd[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets notability guidelines regarding sports or passes WP:GNG. LiberatorLX (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing shows she meets NCOLLATH or GNG. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Total Knockout[edit]

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

Non-notable YouTube series. No context or claims of notability. —Noiratsi (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently non-notable and will likely not produce the sources necessary to show that. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mubariz[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a surname. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. - Mr X 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:APONOTE this article fails inclusion as a list because it only has one entry, and fails inclusion as a stand-alone article because it is not notable, not sourced and hA very little content. —Noiratsi (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by Fuse. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ICP theater[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable television program. I am unable to find reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. - Mr X 21:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Fuse Pretty much a short-run MST3K clone without any notability outside of ICP fans. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garjana - A fight against rape[edit]

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

No references, very few Google results. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Jinkinson talk to me 13:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 12:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to see if I could find any evidence of notability, I did not succeed Ottawakismet (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)][reply]

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

Delete per this article being TOO SOON. I spent a few moments straightening up the article, and while some of the principals are notable, this has not resulted in this as-yet-unreleased film receiving the requisite coverage to make it an exception under WP:NFF (paragraph 3).[7] Okay to userfy it back to its author until coverage is forthcoming. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 23:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Characters of StarCraft. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zeratul[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Zeratul" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

This looks quite nice at first glance, until one realizes that almost all references are to primary sources (game rulebook, novels, etc.). Unlike its two fellow StarCraft characters, which can boast to have received some decent coverage (Jim_Raynor#Reception, Sarah_Kerrigan#Reception) and seem notable, this poor guy doesn't have much to speak for himself (Zeratul#Reception). As such, this article clearly fails WP:GNG. It may be transwikified to http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/StarCraft_Wiki , but it doesn't seem to satisfy notability criteria for our more general encyclopedia, at least not as presented currently. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's tons of sources on both paper and the Internet. Including reception for this "poor guy", if you insist so much. Look around. --Niemti (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Characters of StarCraft as this is one of those "need WP:SPLIT" cases from the game article, but not also from the character list. This article doesn't have many reliable secondary references, a bunch of mentions like in-game stuff and merchandise, but not a whole lot critical reception for proper WP:WAF. This is still WP:GAMECRUFT and even with WP:GNG passed (although I don't see in-depth sources focused on Zeratul specifically rather that the games or multiple characters) I think this is best described in the characters list/article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the character list. This is not independently notable, so it doesn't need an article. TTN (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—hard to imagine a more iconic video game character, not to mention being a highly recognized character in Internet-age fiction. This goes down to the debate of whether we should have articles about any fictional characters at all; but if we should, I don't see many Internet-age ones more fitting than Zeratul. The article currently lists just a few secondary sources, but this seems to be more from a lack of non-fans and "out-of-universe" Wikipedians editing the article than from an actual lack of such sources. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Unless, of course, Ynhockey is willing to fix the article to meet current base standards. To address some points made by the user: it really does not go down to the debate of whether we should have articles about any fictional characters at all. Zeratul may very well be the most significant character introduced in the last 15 years, but this means nothing if the article doesn't reflect that. It doesn't matter why the article lacks these sources; all that matters is that they aren't there. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And that no-one is proving they exist. Anyone can claim excellent sources exist; but our policy is WP:V. I did a google search for sources before AfDing this and I did not see any reliable sources to prove his significance. If anyone wants to save this, go with my blessings and find good sources, add them to the article or at the very least discuss them here. Unless someone can show that such sources exist, this article fails GNG and V and thus needs to go. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Characters of StarCraft. It is true that this character has made an appearance in a number of video games and novels, but I could not find anything in depth written about them. Lack of secondary sources means the topic fails WP:GNG guidelines, but the character is well verifiable. Per WP:PRESERVE, preservation of verifiable material is preferred to deletion and so a merge and redirect to Characters of StarCraft is warranted. This character is anticipated to be the main character in the upcoming StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void, so no prejudice to recreation when likely multiple RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny B. Azari[edit]

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

I must say I am not an expert in contemporary rock music, however, this article somehow struck me as undersourced. The guy was allegedly a frontman of three groups, each of them being described by media as the new discovery in rock-music, but none of them has an article. There are many citations, but most of them are off-line (and, surprisingly, though which are supposed to be the most reliable such as NYT are not available), and none of the onlines one even mentioned him, with the exception of an interview with the last group, where he is mentioned twice. My own search did not bring anything - indeed, one NYT article about his mother, where he is mentioned in passing. But sure if the group broke the attendance record as mentioned in the article, this should have been noticed by at least one online source? I am afraid Johny B. is just not notable according to our standards for the time being. Ymblanter (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted by User:Alexf per G11. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Rose Series[edit]

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

I'm nominating this page, along with two other pages for characters in the same series up for deletion. This is ultimately a non-notable self-published series. I can't see where it has gained any coverage in reliable sources (WP:RS that would show that it passes WP:NBOOK. I wish the author well, but neither the series nor its characters pass notability guidelines and Wikipedia is not the proper place for this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Delete. I originally PRODed this as "Possibly made up. There is an amateur website but also incomplete. No other sources can be found that confirm the existence of such a series. Fails WP:GNG". PROD was removed by the author without addressing the issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I PRODded a couple of these. No independent coverage. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought about WP:CSD last night. Now I noticed the author removed other editor's tags. Otherwise as above.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth keeping Ottawakismet (talk) 16:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two of the articles are largely copyvio from the Megan Hultz website. I can find the book at Amazon.com, but I can't find any reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What Ottawakismet said.--Tco03displays (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile World Capital[edit]

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

pure public relations,

It is possible that GSAMS Mobile World Congress is a notable trade convention, but that should be written separately, with some good sources DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial cites in GN. Commercial spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karpagam College of Engineering[edit]

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

Lack of notability: there seems to be very little information about this institution online apart from two official looking websites, neither of which are functional to a level beyond confirming the name, location and contact details. There may instead be grounds to have a general page for Karpagam Educational Institutes which apparently incorporates a number of educational institutes, although references for such are equally unavailable.
Misuse: This page looks like an advertisement of available courses, in lieu of a functional website. Looking at the history of the article, it seems many attempts have been made to discourage this kind of use, but the college (presumably) persists in their misuse. Additionally, it was found to have a personal message to students in the body of the article which affirms suspicions that this is being used as a personal website and noticeboard.
Cantivsto (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Large parts of this article were text taken from other education institutions' websites, about their own courses, and have been removed. Normally a post-school education institution defaults to notable, but this looks more dubious as a result of that edit history, though I suppose if evidence of its accreditation is found, it will survive. (Though probably in need of some protection against being spiced with misleading wannabe text from other institutions.) AllyD (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 03:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this article should be deleted. The college itself isn't even notable.

Robert (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – Recollected • 07:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small private colleges are not inherently notable. and this one sorely lacks third party coverage. fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keeping for now based on the improvement and good faith work here. SarahStierch (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When In Manila[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the sources presented here show that this website passes WP:WEB. First the ones in the current article:

Manila Bulletin - I couldn't access this, but from the title it doesn't seem likely to have extended coverage of When In Manila.
Interaksyon - this one seems ok on the surface, but seems suspiciously like PR. There's a lot of coverage of When In Manila's Twitter trending, and not much at all about any of the other winners. I'd guess that it was written by When In Manila and then just printed as is by the site. There is no author named, which doesn't help.

Next, the sources presented in the suggested update by Tony Ahn on the talk page:

Inquirer Libre - this one was written by Tony Ahn, so doesn't count as independent of the subject. (Tony is a PR agent for When In Manila.)
Influential Blogger - this is a blog, which we don't accept as a reliable source.
Facebook - this isn't a reliable source either.
Philstar - doesn't actually mention When In Manila - we need coverage about the subject in order for the source to count towards notability.

I notice that the website has won two awards, but I am not sure whether they count as "well-known and independent" for the purposes of WP:WEB. I'd like to hear others' opinions on this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also mention that I didn't find any other likely-looking sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to break my reply up into pieces so people can respond to each of the unrelated points easily. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "PR agent" for When In Manila. I am a consultant that helps them with digital issues like whether to stay on the Wordpress platform or go off of it, how to implement Google authorship, etc. And I do that in a volunteer capacity. Volunteers helping their organizations get some press are not in a COI situation. I wrote that article and submitted it to Inquirer, but it was an Inquirer editor that independently made the decision to run it, and I didn't influence his decision in any way except to write an article that he thought was newsworthy. Separately from that, as per WP:SELFPUB sources writing about themselves are perfectly reliable when reporting information about themselves unlikely to be challenged. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether the awards are "well-known and independent," the Tatt Awards (since its inception in 2011) have been covered by the three largest newspapers in the country (by circulation) [8] [9] [10] [11], the largest online news organization in the country (by traffic) [12], and Yahoo News [13]. Is it independent? Its sponsored by Globe Telecom, one of the top 10 largest corporations in the country, invited notable judges from the community, and a percentage of the judging is by popular vote, so I'd say yes, its independent. The other award, Rotary, was covered by Manila Bulletin, Philippine Daily Inquirer [14], and the Philippine Entertainment Portal [15], among others (figured that was enough so didn't continue searching). I'd say The Rotary Club, as a well-recognized international organization, is independent too, as is the Manila chapter that has been holding the awards for more than a decade. I'm Tony Ahn (talk)

Regarding the Philstar piece, it reports a tourism award was given to Vince Golangco, who happens to be the When In Manila founder/publisher, for "online media". According to a detailed Google search, he hadn't done anything else with online media. That award was for his work with When In Manila. Rotary doesn't award organizations, only people, which is why all the other awardees were CEOs and business magnates. Wikipedia guidelines state that if a person is only notable for one topic, they don't warrant their own article, just a mention in the notable topic's article. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Yes, I wrote the When In Manila entry, the original one but to be fair, I would like to mention too that I am not connected to them anymore.

Nevertheless, I am willing to vouch for the authenticity of some infos in the original entry. The Manila Bulletin article has most likely been removed since Manila Bulletin usually removes news items more than a year old but I can find a cache for that. I will post it here when I find it. The article does mention Vince Golangco, founder of When In Manila, as the recipient and received it in behalf of the online community.

As for the rest of the infos in question, I would just leave it to those still connected with When In Manila to vouch for.

Thank you very much! User:RepublicaNegrense

When on AfD, (Weak) Delete as the Romans do - The only sources given (and also those I could find) are passing mentions or promotional articles. While they did win an award, the award itself is neither prestigious nor notable itself. If someone else finds a source I missed, feel free to ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because an article is complimentary doesn't mean it is promotional. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you reading WP:COI, as you appear to have a connection with the subject of this article. Thank you very much. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take a look at that, shall we? Emphasis which follows is mine. "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged." I am not an editor of this article, having never edited it. I have not engaged in COI editing, having proposed changes on the talk page, as the WP:COI guideline recommends. What we're discussing here is whether or not a particular source is independent or not. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm familiar with the website and I have a lot of blogger friends who are acquainted with the website's founder who is also a DJ at a local radio station.) I currently think that When In Manila lacks enough reliable sources to establish notability. So the article will not pass WP:WEB in my opinion. That said, I think it's possible in the future that the website will gain enough sources to establish notability. --seav (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the references to fix the broken one (notice that article says the award is "prestigious" which should further satisfy Wikipedia's guideline about a major award) and to improve the format. Have added no new material. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 02:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With such minimal coverage this does not pass notability standards, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the article. Dropping the disputed sources, we've got

Jusay, Annalyn (June 7, 2010). "Wheninmanila.com (and Beyond!)". Manila Bulletin.
"Winners of Tatt Awards honored, one pulls Twitter stunt". interaksyon.com. Interaksyon. July 14, 2013. Retrieved August 11, 2013.

I think those two, combined with the reporting on the two major awards they earned, qualifies them for inclusion. The other disputed sources add detail, but these definitely confer notability. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the link to "Wheninmanila.com (and Beyond!)"? I can't find it on the Manila Bulletin's website.Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Bulletin only keeps content live on their site for about a year. However it has been archived by Highbeam Research [16] and Questia [17] but is behind a pay fence in both places. The Questia free snippet is the longer of the two. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I can read, the interview appears to be more on the site's founder (which means notability for him could be established) rather than for the site itself, but it's promising enough for me to change my !vote to a weak delete. I still can't seem to find much significant and independent reliable coverage for the site, so if someone else does, ping me. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an inaccurate read. The headline mentions the website, and the article is an interview with the founder. This YouTube video [18] shows the article itself, and if you notice, the image in the article is of the When In Manila logo, not a picture of the founder. The first paragraph opens talking about the site, and closes with the site, introducing the founder (the interview subject) in between. The last paragraph (shown below) is entirely about the site. I think that satisfies the requirement that When In Manila be the subject of the article. Here are some snippets from later in the interview where you can't read through the payfence, although I can't post the whole article for copyright reasons:

Q. What has been your best blogging moment in Manila (and beyond) thus far?
A. Wow, way too many to mention. Overall, it's meeting so many amazing people whom I would have never met had I not started my blog http://www.wheninmanila.com
To be more specific, I enjoyed sponsored travel to Boracay and got to go cliff diving there with some celebrities! It was an epic moment in my life and an unforgettable trip as cliff diving was one adventure I've always wanted to try but was also one fear I never thought I would overcome! Again, this happened because of blogging.
Q. Please share with us your plans for your blog.
A. WhenInManila.com hopes to become a full-on online video channel. We're also hoping to produce short films and fun videos that everyone can enjoy. We want to be sort of an online entertainment hub where you can check out funny videos and articles. Eventually, we envision ourselves as an online production house that would also produce videos and content for people specifically to be placed and marketed on the internet.

So I think this article is clearly about the blog. The founder is not notable for anything outside When In Manila, so a When In Manila article that mentions him is a lot more appropriate than an article about him that mentions When In Manila. That, along with the Interaksyon article and the awards should alone be enough to justify inclusion. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sympathetic to inclusion, but this really needs a lot better sourcing. Blogs are not always reliable, but it depends on how well the blog itself is known. I tried very hard to look online. I did not find more than passing mentions such as this in any major publications in the broadcast media in the Metro Manila area. I did find a single mention in the Inquirer, here. I would be convinced to go with it, if more of the same type of source could be found. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article has been trying to gain a foothold since 2011. It has been in an out of the incubator and has seen no content added since August 2013. I will userfy upon request but I see no reason to return to the Incubator. Sources are claimed in the AFD discussion but I cannot understand why nothing has been done to this article. JodyB_talk 21:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platform No. 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is the third nomination for this page. It is a film that at least needs more references to demonstrate (1) it has been released and (2) any impact it may have made.

Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate. My first instinct was to say "delete", but this link asserts that the film is in post-production and that it should be released this year. I have to say that I have my doubts about this, given that the film's release date has continually been pushed back for the last two years. Combined with the insanely light coverage in the news in sources such as this, this and this, I'm kind of leaning towards this film not releasing this year and probably sitting in limbo forever. There's always the possibility of Malayam language sources, but my experience with Indian films is that the English language coverage is often proportional to the foreign language sources. It's not a rule, but something I've tended to notice as a frequent occurrence. In any case, the mention of it possibly releasing this year is enough for me to argue for a incubation, although I won't argue too hard if it's deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 21:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no objection to incubation/userification if someone so desires and is ready to take responsibility to keep an eye on the article. However it should not be moved back to mainspace till there is positive evidence that the film has been released and meets WP:NFILM requirements. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Incubator per coverage, IBN The Hindu Sify The Hindu Daily News & Analysis Deccan Herald et al [19] and as actress Dhanya Mary Varghese has "completed filming" her scenes,The Hindu (see paragraph 6), we can see that filming HAS commenced. Being as-yet-unreleased, we then look to WP:NFF (paragraph 3) to see that an article is still a tad premature. Cannot userfy to author, as he has been blocked for copyright violations. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to D12. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swifty Mcvay[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks significant independent coverage in reliable sources to merit a separate article. All his significant work has been done with D12, with nothing significant done as a solo artist. I would support a redirect to D12, but we already have Swifty McVay, so no point. STATic message me! 21:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Make redirect and add an html comment below the redirect of Swifty Mcvay similar to the one I just added to Swifty McVay (rapper) and Swifty McVay and pointing to Talk:D12#Swifty McVay. Why leave a redirect? If this person ever becomes notable, the existing histories will come in handy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, not enough coverage. Koala15 (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Car Inc.[edit]

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

It's possible I am missing something, but none of the sources appear to actually mention the subject of the article. CorporateM (Talk) 20:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. While this organization appears authentic, all I can find in books and periodicals are some passing mentions. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GELADO DE MÚCUA[edit]

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

Recipe/how-to/original research. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, nothing of value here--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything worth keeping to Adansonia digitata which I believe is the parent subject? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed a new page Gelado de Mukua created by a different account.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (both), they are articles about how to make baobab ice cream from baobab. There's nothing to merge. You could just put under the Food Uses and Nutrition section of Adansonia digitata "this fruit can be made into ice cream," if you really want to. Just don't cut & paste the awkward translation... I feel bad for giggling, but "He/she comes undone in the mouth" isn't encyclopedic. -Tortie tude (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is a dissertation a passable source? Considering the existence of an article for Strawberry ice cream and other such items, I'm not sure what differentiates a baobab product in the same vein. It's popular enough in Angola to have a song named after it. Dracontes (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly worth merging to the main article that covers the fruit. I don't think it's best covered as a separate article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as the near-exemplar for the judicious application of TNT. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-disciplinary Engineering[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Appears to be a slight restatement of systems engineering without significant sourcing justifying this as worth a separate entry. This article has been around for a couple of years without real improvement.

Recommend replacing with a simple redirect to Systems engineering.

214.4.238.180 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completed the nomination and support the redirect as a neologism. Ansh6 6 6 20:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge and redirect to Systems engineering can be considered after AfD is closed. It should have been considered WP:BEFORE. I don't see any evidence on talk pages that it was. ~KvnG 00:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Multi-disciplinary Engineering" gets about 1,140 hits on GScholar and browsing the first few pages makes it clear that multi-disciplinary engineering is a topic in itself. There exist cirricula in multi-disciplinary engineering at some universities. It easily passes WP:GNG as having multiple reliable sources that go in depth about the concept. The article could use some improvement in sourcing and prose, but these are surmountable problems per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 07:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Achenbaum[edit]

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

Disguised advertising for an marketing institute. Person itself fails WP:GNG with less than 3000 Google hits. The institute promoted here has even less hits. The Banner talk 13:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 13:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Alvin Achenbaum entry in an attempt to address the weaknesses identified by reviewers, including adding reliable sources, including more citations for verifications, cleaning up the editing errors, eliminating its orphan status and neutralizing the POV. (I am his daughter-in-law but have tried to be impartial.)

I believe that the entry deserves to be in wikipedia because of the important contributions made by Achenbaum to the advertising, research and marketing industries from 1955 to 2005. There are no commercial or profit goals for the Achenbaum Institute. Achenbaum (88) is retired from professional work. He donated his papers to Duke University libraries at his own expense. His work is purely philanthropic. He has written a guidebook for marketers which is available for free download. He has endowed a grant program which underwrites travel for scholars of marketing and advertising at Duke. As one of the 100 most important advertising people of the twentieth century, Achenbaum merits a wikipedia entry because of his many substantial contributions to both intellectual thinking and business practices.

I think you will see more google hits to Achenbaum as scholars access his papers and marketers learn about his free guidebook. Barbachenbaum 16:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbachenbaum (talk • contribs)

- Wikipedia is not a media for promotion, even when it is about a free guidebook. Sorry. The Banner talk 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Squeaks by on the "100 most influential whatever" etc. He's been long retired so not suprising if there are few ghits. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 24. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 02:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XM.com[edit]

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

All references either press releases or trivial coverage. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG as no independent, substantive coverage found. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete The references in the article are a mix of PR and unreliable sources, nor have I located anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 10:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Userfied and informed the user. SarahStierch (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Downward Dog[edit]

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

Film has not entered main production, WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main production added, cast & crew not announced completely by film makers. U BS 16:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A concern for those involved in expansion and improvement, Lacking information is not a reason to delete. We're here to build. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

And more results not found in Google searches: WP:INDAFD

Weak Keep and allow this new article to be expanded and improved using available sources. Tagging, not deletion is the more appropriate action for improvable topics. Okay with it being incubated while it is expanded with the title itself temporarily redirected to Azad Film Company until it is more suitable for mainspace. WP:WIP Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or userfy - there isn't really enough coverage of this film yet to go crystal-balling an article. But I'd be fine with Schmidt's suggestion of userfication/incubation until it is ready. The author, though, shouldn't have replaced the content of Downward dog (the yoga pose that rightly redirected to Adho Mukha Svanasana) with content about the film and then moved it to Downward Dog. That's not a good idea. I have restored that redirect from the uncapitalised title and will disambig from this article. If this is redirected as a result of this discussion, there should be a disambig for "Downward Dog" at Azad Film Company. Stalwart111 07:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nature Town![edit]

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

No independent reliable sources attest to the notability of this web series. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all. Rangoondispenser (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as above. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are multiple issues with this article, but in my judgement a threshold of notability is achieved. There is coverage in a regional newspaper and it seems that the organization has made an impact in their area. From WP:ORGSIG, --"When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."-- This one needs improvement but should stay. JodyB_talk 22:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kapampangan Development Foundation[edit]

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

Basically unsourced. Notability dubious. bender235 (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing quite a bit of coverage from The Sun Star regarding some of their programs. Although the coverage is under "Local News" and individually each news report is rather short, the mere fact that it got covered several times should be enough to establish notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article needs a major rewrite to remove all advertisement stuff. But KDF seems to be a notable organization, http://books.google.com/books?id=sVtOAQAAIAAJ p. 333 indicates that it was founded by Corazon Aquino. --Soman (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too promotionalto keep,and minimal notability. Being started by a famous person does not make something notable . DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 03:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. the limited coverage mainly proves it exists rather than indepth establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately I couldn't find good references from both Google Books and Google Scholar. I've checked the three major Philippine newspapers but there are no notable mentions save one which I believe isn't enough to assert notability. I've added the cite to the article if you want to check it out. They're a good organization but I have to say delete due to WP:NOBLE issues. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Appomattox[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. I don't see any evidence that a deal has been actually signed, let alone filming has begun. Even the film's official website doesn't indicate that the series has been bought or that anything has happened except cast commitments. Bbb23 (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 10:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It was supposed to film in 2012 and IMDb still has its status set to "pre-producton". I'm betting the financing has fallen through, which is precisely why NFF always insists that filming must have begun. Betty Logan (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buff bills 7701 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Double dark theory[edit]

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

Double dark theory appears to be a neologism by Joel Primack. While I think it's a clever one, I don't think it has been widely enough adopted to deserve a separate Wikipedia article. jps (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete if it's a real thing it might merit a mention at dark matter, but whether or not there's not enough for a separate article.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment as it seems to be his name for his dark matter theory I think redirecting it there makes sense, whether or not there's anything worth merging.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero sources, only a few cites in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Secret ^account 19:10, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 University of Alabama football scandal[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion. At present there isn't enough infomration to warrant an entire article. There is a section on most teams main page where NCAA violations or allegation of violations are detailed.

If the allegations lead to an investigation and major sanctions follow it could warrant it's own article at that time perhaps.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaqwert (talk • contribs)

Delete - Much of this seems to fail general notability guidelines of significant coverage from multiple sources. This can be covered in summary form at Alabama Crimson Tide football#Controversies as past "scandals" have been. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Wikipedia is not the news. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 01:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as while there might be enough substance for a line or two in the season article there's too much speculation and conflation here for an independent article. - Dravecky (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like WP:ONEEVENT to me. Incorporate into other articles.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A decent article can be harvested. There are enough sources including the NY Time. It has been cited. A definite keep. This is a developing and evolving current event. DeusImperator (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts of the article are developing now? A Google search for articles on "Luther Davis" & Fluker only shows articles from Sept. 2013. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dallas#Sister cities. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities of Dallas[edit]

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

Outdated and already mentioned in main article on Dallas JB82 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant and not meeting the notability basics. - Dravecky (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Themekenter (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. No need for deletion. Pburka (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already covered at Dallas, no need for a redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect based on Pburka's comment. Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Dallas. There is already a sub-section in Dallas reflecting sister cities. If any are missing they can be added in there DeusImperator (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kenilworth Trail[edit]

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

Completing nomination for User:209.162.18.52, whose rationale (see the talk page of this AfD) was "i am nominating this for deletion. by itself it is not notable and over the coming months will simply become a proxy article for discussion about SW LRT extension in Minneapolis". I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 20:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Ansh6 6 6 20:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We don't delete articles because they might become problematic. There appears that there's just enough available sourcing to squeak this passt GNG, and therefore, it should be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Dan & the Scurvy Crew[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Captain Dan & the Scurvy Crew

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

Completing nomination for various IPs, see discussion at Talk:Captain Dan & the Scurvy Crew. I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 21:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found some hits from Wired's GeekDad that made me somewhat optimistic that there would be more sources, but in the end that's really all there is. The mention of them showing up on one episode of AGT isn't really something that would really give notability per Wikipedia's guidelines, as they didn't progress. Unless they get an extreme amount of coverage ala William Hung, it's just sort of trivial coverage. Now the problem with the GD sources is that there's a slight problem with it being maybe a primary source since the band did play on the Geekdad stage at one Nerdapalooza. The bottom line is that this band just isn't notable enough to be included on Wikipedia right now. If anyone wants to userfy it, I have no issues with that. It's just that despite claims of the band calling into various radio programs and the band playing at Nerdapalooza, there's a dearth of coverage overall. The band just doesn't pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solvathellam Unmai[edit]

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

There is no explanation on why this show is notable. There are no references to prove notability. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeslaTeam[edit]

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

The group described in the article isn't getting any coverage in independent sources. I couldn't find any sources or mentions outside of social media. Fails notability requirement. Diannaa (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - No coverage in English but they appear to be notable in Croatian as indicated by the article's references: [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. ~KvnG 18:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. KTC (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Man and Machine Collide[edit]

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

Unreleased album that fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:TOOSOON. Koala15 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreleased and not even a tracklist. Does it even exist?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Omari Akhmedov[edit]

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

On notability grounds - MMA fighter with only a single top tier fight Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's true he doesn't meet WP:NMMA yet. However, he's unbeaten and already won his first UFC fight so it's quite likely he'll get at least two more top tier fights. I would hate to see this article deleted just to be recreated a little later--perhaps someone might be willing to put this in their sandbox temporarily. Papaursa (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on him being a Russian National Pankration and Hand-to-Hand Combat champion, thus passing WP:WPMA/N as a fighter who has won multiple significant national tornaments. Luchuslu (talk)

Keep Although the events mentioned by Luchuslu were amateur events, I think it's enough to show notability when combined with his MMA record. Papaursa (talk) 04:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fight of the Night winner, and other accomplishments. LiberatorLX (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted by User:Jimfbleak per G12. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UrbanTone Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After a bit of my own research, appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I CSD'd the article, as it is directly copied from the company's website. Roster consists of a single, marginally-notable group. Distribution is through CD-Baby, which to me in-and-of-itself speaks of lack of notability anyway. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flo DiRe[edit]

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

Doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brad S. Karp[edit]

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

Except for a mention in The New York Times as a "rising star" I have only found brief mentions and quotes. CorporateM (Talk) 03:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nation Consulting[edit]

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

Appears to be a small public relations firm. A Google News search didn't turn up much. CorporateM (Talk) 03:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Global Strategy Group[edit]

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

PR agency with only 50 employees. CorporateM (Talk) 04:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The number of the firm's employees is not relevant to its notability. On the other hand, coverage from reliable sources, such as this, this, this, this, and certainly this allow it to meet WP:GNG. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S. R. Wojdak & Associates[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer firm. Some of the cites do not actually mention the org and others are just brief mentions. CorporateM (Talk) 03:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am deleting but without prejudice. It can be recreated if reliable sources can be found to support notability. The sources need to focus on the company itself, not on studies, not on the founder and not on the founder's book. Surely some independent source has covered the company. Bring that to it and all will be fine. In the meantime, I will userfy upon request so that work can be done on the article JodyB_talk 21:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SalesLabs[edit]

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

No indication of significance, but lets get other input on the issue. Wikianoldie (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a couple of indications of significance, for example winning two Stevie Awards. But apart from that the article is entirely cited to primary sources and heavily embedded with promotional urls to company homepages and book sales sites. The author "Daersalohcin" is clearly the firm's founder, Nicholas Read. This is almost a speedy deletion candidate because it would need a complete overhaul to be encyclopedic in any way, we'd be left with a couple of sentences about the Stevie's! I can't see any evidence of significant news coverage about any of the other activities of the company - either way, Wikipedia isn't the place to belatedly start a publicity campaign. Sionk (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined - Do note this company is a spin-off from Ernst & Young. When CapGemini span out of Ernst & Young, it was appropriate for that company to have a Wikipedia entry. So too for this, otherwise it looks like discrimination. The company is a factual entity performing a service to a specific industry. It should not be deleted. Claims of importance - the company produced a best-selling book; the company is a leader in its field with Fortune 100 clients...it's deletion would seem bizarre in the business landscape.

Companies (and people) aren't entitled to a listing because they exist, they need to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria too. There's no evidence in the article about your claims. In fact it says it was founded in 1994 and 2008, which can't both be correct! Sionk (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- As a private company, I would expect there to be some evidence that it has substantial assets, profits or turnover before I could vote to keep it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Article overhauled to remove self referential content, and instead cite industry journal sources that meet the notability criteria about why the business merits entry due to its unique research and position within its industry cluster. Sionk's concern about company founding date is resolved. The article was confusing in citing the 1964 original founding, the rebranding of the business and its acquisition and departure from Ernst & Young in 2008, Good advice, thank you. News coverage citations have been added from outlets such as Inc magazine, USAToday, Forbes and others, trusting these are deemed appropriate as 'significant news coverage'. Again, helpful advice, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daersalohcin (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- User Sionk's comments have been reviewed again, plus their advice to other submitters has been viewed in Sionk's history to anticipate other areas likely to raise concern. We hope all items now comply. The only Reference that cites a company webpage is Ref 19, and only because the television interview is housed there. But it was not created by SalesLabs. It went to air live on the television channel. We trust this doesn't create confusion, but are happy to receive further direction, even if it is to delete the reference. Daersalohcin —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Thanks Mark Arsten. We appreciate user Sionk's edits and trust everyone is happy with the current entry to move ahead at this time. Note however that we risk running into changes of diminishing returns when making edits to appease one reviewer incurs the critique of another for having made those changes. For this reason we'd like to agree the entry stands as is, for now. We have taken inspiration from other approved entries with regards to both the entry's structure, content and wording, in the hope that what is fair and reasonable for those entries will find consistent treatment for this entry.
Keep Firstly, as a housekeeping measure, Daersalohcin, it is easier for others to follow the conversation when you sign your posts. This is as easy as typing four tildes (~) at the end of your posts. Thanks in advance. Secondly, many of the cites and sources added are reliable sources about the challenges of adult learning and information retention. These demonstrate that the challenges of these areas are notable and widely discussed in the business world in relation to sales teams. They don't, however, demonstrate that the SalesLabs company is similarly-discussed. What seems more odd to me is that Managing Partner Nic Read was invited to discuss these issues in a Forbes article which directly addresses the notability of SalesLabs. This isn't in a bloggy section of Forbes, so I would accept this as a reliable source of the type that the article needs. So I think that SalesLabs passes the bar of notability, although the article needs further work. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a surprising conclusion. Read was not talking about SalesLab and, even if he was, he's hardly reliable and independent if he is founder of the company. Sionk (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RTextDoc[edit]

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

advertisement of nonnotable product, found no usable sources which might warrant notability TEDickey (talk) 12:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement of GNU software? Hmm, wikipedia has huge number of such articles. Still very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.173.94 (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 12:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are primary and thus unsuitable. Googling turns up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no change since Afd opened) TEDickey (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kierscey Regozo[edit]

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

Musician lacking significant coverage in reliable sources and doesn't pass any criterion of WP:NMUSIC. Appears to be a touring/session musician who has played with a couple of notable artists including the band Down With Webster, although he doesn't seemed to have been an actual member of the band. One of the sources cited suggests that this person born in 1984 co-wrote a song performed by Muddy Waters, who died in 1983, which gives an idea of the sourcing issues. Michig (talk) 14:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess we can conclude that iHeartRadio is not a reliable source, since they credit this fellow born in 1984 with co-writing Got My Mojo Working, which was first recorded in 1956. I doubt that time travel is involved. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current sources not reliable, no other sources found on search. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Rooster Teeth Podcast[edit]

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

Non-notable. No coverage in reliable secondary sources attesting to the independent notability of the podcast. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 23. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article says it won a podcaster award, but I'm completely unaware of how notable that award is. Anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Going by Google search results, the podcast does not seem notable, but maybe I missed something. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apparently nobody wants to talk about this, so I'm going on what I see from doing Google searches. This does not seem to be a notable podcast. If someone can show evidence that the award is notable, I'll change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article is unsourced, and with two deletes and zero keeps we can just treat the AfD similar to an expired PROD.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mikado (band)[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. French charts sites don't list any hits. Any claims of notability are vague at best. Michig (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no references, this article is borderline speedy-able, in my opinion. Jinkinson talk to me 00:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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