< 12 December 14 December >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Arapahoe High School (Centennial, Colorado). Mkdwtalk 01:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arapahoe High School shooting[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karl Pierson


Arapahoe High School shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. Unfortunately, school shootings are just not that notable. There were no victims, and I doubt any societal change will occur from this incident. Wikipedia has no deadline, and if it becomes apparent that this is something more than a simple crime, we can write a story on it then. John from Idegon (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the event will likely spark another debate on gun control and this shooting will be referenced a lot in the coming months. Please note that I created this article. Newyorkadam (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
I also disagree. The frequency of school shootings does not make these events less notable. Also here the proximity to Columbine and Aurora, though arguably spurious, will magnify the public's interest in this event.Dvfinnh (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree. This is absolutely notable and to say it is not is heartless. Also, there are reported victims, unlike you stated above.[1] This in no way should be nominated for deletion.--Zach Pepsin (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was a school shooting. When a shooting happens in a school it usually gets a lot of national media attention. Shootings at schools are not an everyday occurrence and only happen once every few months. The shooter also committed suicide at the school and apparently had the intention to kill a lot of people, which definitely is not similar to a typical gang-related shooting that happens everyday. Cyanidethistles (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Counter: Just because something happens in a school, doesn't alone make it notable. Just because it crosses Brian Williams desk for 15 seconds doesn't make it worthy of an article. The Dekalb school incident of 2013 also had an article here that was also correctly deleted even though the talking heads on 24 hour infotainment channels tried to make some money on it. This was not a spree shooting. This was not perpetrated with a special gun control target weapon. this appears to be something that happens when you have 300 million people in a technologically connected world. People do bad things sometimes. In 1950, nobody outside the local newspaper would report this. It's not notable-Justanonymous (talk) 00:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, I suppose I agree. I don't really think that this shooting really warrants an article but I was giving out how I felt about all of this. Also, there are articles for Mumford High School shooting and SuccessTech Academy shooting. The Mumford shooting in Detroit doesn't seem to have any national news sources covering it and was just another inner city gang-related shooting that happened outside of the school. I'm surprised those are still up.
Disagree. "This was not perpetrated with a special gun control target weapon." That's a really poor argument. That's like saying that shootings that don't serve a particular political narrative aren't worthy of inclusion.24.14.55.138 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Indeed, this event is notable because (as I suspect we will see more of soon) a school resource officer immediately confronted the shooter, before he could harm more than one other person, and as we saw with the Navy Yard shooting, a pump shotgun can easily be used to lethal effect: despite the legislative/media focus on military-style rifles, more mass shootings have been perpetrated with handguns and pump action shotguns. These factors make the event highly politically relevant. Tbessler (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cyanidethistles (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
— 24.14.55.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay: Even though Shooting was a big thing, like the Columbine High School shooting(not far from Arapahoe High) or the one that happen a year ago today(December 14, 2013), it shows that if this happen again, then people can see what they can do in this situation. That was a really good idea for librarian to leave school. See also what happen aftermath. Also people are saying there no victims, I don't know if they have been reading or watching news lately, one is still in critically condition, she can die from this, but do we know that right now. No, so I say stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.87.110 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 24.12.6.25 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Err, you might want to check again ... the term "Arapahoe" was not spelled correctly. WWGB (talk) 11:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My typing has always been rubbish. Nevertheless I doubt that this event will create the kind of lasting coverage to make it notable.TheLongTone (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And after the spelling is corrected you find several entries on the BBC website. Likewise for The Guardian, Russia Today, Le Monde, El País, The Times of India, and Asahi Shimbun (search for アラパホ), these just being the international media I checked.  --Lambiam
Which I do not deny: the fact remains that this is an incident that will be largely forgotten in a couple of weeks.TheLongTone (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How could you possibly know that?24.12.6.25 (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this isn't morally inexcusable. As a human being I detest any and every kind of event like this. However, we shouldn't make this justification for making school shootings rise above all of the other violent acts that happen every day in this world. For Wikipedia, we want to cover the most significant and widely-studied topics. Although it's sad, I'm not convinced this is one of them. The information will still be included in Wikipedia, I'm just proposing we move it to the high school article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The existence or not of this article is not subject to anyone's emotion. The "heartless" comment above is out of line.
  2. The "domination" of the news cycle in the US is not a reason for this article to exist, because there is a whole lot of English speaking world where it is not. This is not US.Wikipedia, it is en.wikipedia. Also the specific policy WP:NOTNEWS that I cited in the nom applies.
  3. Comparing the edits on this school shooting to the Sandy Hook shooting--well, there is no comparison. That article was on fire for a week after the incident. This one, hardly at all. That indicates the lack of general interest, and by extension, this incident's importance.

I would also add that merge would be a very acceptable outcome to the nominator. John from Idegon (talk) 20:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I agree with this.
  2. This is not US.Wikipedia but US events are extremely important.
  3. There's less edits because there's less information.

--Rockstonetalk to me! 23:16, 16 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 one "keep" opinion does not make a meaningful argument in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  09:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramid (card game)[edit]

Pyramid (card game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable product. The original game as featured on the 1970s TV show Battlestar Galactica had no "rules" and was merely improvised by the cast for each scene in which it appeared. This is a separate, commercial product which does not meet WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 23:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this page should be kept because, I think the article should be informative to card players who play different card games like FreeCell and Solitare. Thewikiguru1 (talk) 01:33, 19 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) 02:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Model Management[edit]

Red Model Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since '10. After a PROD, the creator promised sources and never delivered. Someone on the talk page never found coverage and neither can I; there are only occasional management credits for models (and apparently Lindsay Lohan's boyfriend), which certainly is not enough to establish notability.  Mbinebri  talk ← 23:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preechaya Pongthananikorn[edit]

Preechaya Pongthananikorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress. This person does not appear to have any notability outside of the Thai movie, ATM: Er Rak Error. The film has a claim for notability, but while Pongthananikorn plays a major role in it, I doubt her significance in Thailand extends beyond that to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Empty Force[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Empty Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This went through an AfD nomination two years ago with the consensus being 'Keep based on more information being out there than the single source of the so-called Master. The remaining information out there are forums and blogs and there has been no addition or expansion to the artilce. I see nothing to demonstrate that the concept is notable and anything more than an English term used by some to describe terms in broader usage. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would be more convincedof notability if third party reliable sources could be found.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On reviewing the sources that I could find, I wasn't able to confirm that any were independent either of the "Masters" or of schools which claim to teach the Empty Force. I'm not very familiar with this subject area, but after reviewing the criteria listed at WP:WPMA/N I have to change my !vote to delete. Paul Dong is not notable on his own and does not confer notability on this, the history of Empty Force is not externally verifiable, there is no indication that there are a notably large number of students or followers, and although there does seem to be some indication of its use in MMA tournaments this is dubious at best. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kishan Harchandani[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kishan Harchandani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously deleted via AfD, but enough new here to avoid db-repost. However, even with the addition, I really don't see notability here. He created some posters and won a Facebook contest. The other listed award does not appear to be a notable award. Safiel (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery (poet)[edit]

Andrew Slattery (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E, and the event in question is a teapot tempest over alleged plagiarism in a redlinked poetry prize. Original claims to notability evaporate somewhat when you find they are a different Andrew Slattery. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same Andrew Slattery. Did you read the talk page of the article?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no doubt that the Andrew Slattery being discussed is both a poet and a screenwriter - there are reliable sources, including newspaper coverage, that goes back to his earlier awards making the connection clear, and Andrew Slattery used to bill himself as a screenwriter and poet prior to the plagiarism accusations emerging. There appears to be some reputation management going on that has heavily involved Wikipedia. Whether or not the screenwriting and poetry awards are enough to overcome BLP1E is a different issue, though. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same person. That is absolutely established. The person saying otherwise on OTRS is a liar. JzG, you've been used. Hesperian 00:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Football FC[edit]

Philosophy Football FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable amateur football team which appears to be largely some sort of obscure philosophy-based joke. Lots of references in the article but none that cover the team in any depth (or indeed at all) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Safer Wholesale[edit]

Safer Wholesale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per removed prod: It is one of companies that maintains an Ecommerce store without any major significance or encyclopedic reference. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All I wanted to do was write an article about Safer Wholesale; to this minute, although I've been read the riot act on WHY my article is a candidate for deletion, I've not actually been shown viable evidence as to HOW. If you wish to streamline edits, perhaps streamline our job by pointing out these areas where content is deemed 'advertorial' or 'inappropriate' - because without being shown a preponderance of evidence as to why our pages are being deleted, we as writers will find your words to hold little importance - from there, Wikipedia goes southward.TheDailyFlows (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We honestly appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Please try to understand that content that is included on Wikipedia is expected to meet an encyclopedic standard, the definition of which has evolved over time and is subject to the consensus of everyone who contributes. There are established guidelines as to what qualifies as "encyclopedic" per the community's definition, such as the very general guidelines on WP:CORP - the notability of corporate entities - which we have referred to. We haven't discussed the guidelines here in great detail because that page exists with a top-level summary of all of these discussions which have already occurred over many years here. Based on that, it is my opinion (but not necessarily fact) that Safer Wholesale does not currently meet the inclusion standards, because there is a lack of independent sources to demonstrate why it should be included. That is my review of the notability of the company. Please also try to understand that we are not attacking you or your work - this is not in any way a review of the quality of what you have created. Please don't let this discourage you from participating. Ivanvector (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(veering off-topic) I concur wholeheartedly with those last two sentences - we are not attacking you and I hope this experience does not discourage you from participating. It's unfortunate that you happened to pick a company which doesn't seem to qualify for an article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the ecommerce website, not its parent company. If Great Sports were itself a notable company, Safer Wholesale would still not stand up to AfD but may warrant a small mention on the parent company's page. I looked quickly, and "great sports" is an admittedly difficult search to judge by ghits, but from what I can tell there are none for the company other than promo/selfpubs, reviews of products, etc., which are the same issues that I and others noted above. If the page existed and we merged this page into it, it would still not survive AfD. Still delete. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 16 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.  Sandstein  09:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Felt ball rug[edit]

Felt ball rug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG Admiral Caius (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Clement[edit]

Michael Clement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think he meets WP:PROF. Is only an assistant professor in the USA where we know that professorships aren't as prestigious as elsewhereBarney the barney barney (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 18:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to University of Liverpool. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Central Teaching Hub, University of Liverpool[edit]

Central Teaching Hub, University of Liverpool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undistinguished building, no 3rd party sources, I don;t tink a generictitle like this is even worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Chopra[edit]

Parveen Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

to follow Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parveen Chopra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  1. This has been raised at Wikipediocracy and also at user talk:Jimbo Wales.
  2. It is a biography of a living person.
  3. The article appears to have an origin that is conflicted.
  4. There are various awards mentioned, but most seem redlinked and I am unable to judge thier notability (Prestigious Haywood Burns Memorial Award Liberty Bell Award, "Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Award" - which sounds impressive [2] - but he doesn't appear on the Fellowship of Reconciliation's list of previous winners, so it must be a different award?
    • The one award that has an article is the Ellis_Island_Medal_of_Honor seems to be regularly given out to both high and low notability individuals, so despite the attempts of the article to link Mr Chopra with "six Presidents of America, many Nobel laureates, generals, chief justices and other very outstanding citizens of America" who have also received it, I'm not especially impressed.
  5. The claims that he "excels in academics", specifically the fields of business studies and management studies, and it might be worth checking whether he meets WP:PROF.

If we decide it's notable, the article needs gutting to remove promotional content and to add reliable sources. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 01:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damian Fernandez Lamela[edit]

Damian Fernandez Lamela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence of satisfying the notability guidelines. Not only are the sources not independent, but several of them don't even mention Damian Fernandez Lamela, and others barely mention him, such as including his name in a list. The results of a Google search for his name start with Linkedin and this Wikipedia article, and then go on to such things as a blogspot page that merely mentions him in passing, pages that merely include his name in a list, other listings pages giving bare biographical details, about.me/fernandezlamela/collections, a page entitled "Damian fernandez lamela - names of cute babys" (which is as trivial, and as little related to him, as one would guess from the title), etc etc. No sign of significant coverage in any source of any kind. (Note: A PROD was removed by an IP editor.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 01:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Nahak[edit]

Sagar Nahak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is totally 'unencyclopedic', with lots of POV. Challengethelimits (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GoodHire[edit]

GoodHire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

looks like an advert. Fails WP:CORP LibStar (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If you have an issue with the closing of this discussion, please take it to Deletion review. I am happy to userfy an article, just ask. Thanks for assuming good faith. SarahStierch (talk) 03:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Perfettini[edit]

Jacques Perfettini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Foreign Language. Tritario (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was the Legion d'Honneur added out of nowhere by a not logged in user years ato I was suspecting was a hoax. We need sources on that. For now it's not wp:verifiable and without it he isn't notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are divided between deleting the article per WP:BIODEL, and keeping it because of the subject's notability. There's therefore no consensus for deletion. According to WP:BIODEL, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete" (italics in the original). In this case, I choose not to do so, because (a) the identity of the person requesting deletion is not verified (e.g. via WP:OTRS), and (b) the arguments for not deleting it are strong. As has been established, the article is mostly based on information publicly revealed and published on the Internet by Lisa Koonce herself, or with her consent. This makes the only reason why she would want to delete this article the fact that she can't exercise control over it. But we must not take this into consideration, because it would be contrary to our core policy of neutrality, as well as other principles of Wikipedia, to allow article subjects, or anyone else, exclusive control over our content.  Sandstein  12:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Koonce[edit]

Lisa Koonce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lisa Koonce has asked me to have this page removed as she does not want her life on the internet. I am the Marketing and Communications Manager for the Department of Accounting at the McCombs School of Business. Stockwellapril (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yjay argument doesn't hold. At least 80% of our articles are based on sources easily available on the web. That's not a reason to delete them. --Randykitty (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument is based on the quality of the sources, not on the fact that they're available on the web. An article based on CVs will read like a CV. The result will not be an encyclopedia article. Thanks for your comment anyway. 2604:2000:FFC0:7B:CBF:5409:6EB4:DAB3 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yes, a staggeringly large number people's bios are, and if the information there can do harm the question becomes whether WP can do any harm beyond what is there elsewhere . But that's not the question here, since the information cannot do harm: the question is the absurd reason she gives, of wanting to remove her presence on the internet. Since it will be present none the less, and she has in some cases cooperating with her university & its newspaper in making her presence visible in the internet , it makes no sense to try remove it for WP to accomplish that purpose. It was asked "would you want your CV to be edited by people you had no control over"? It it is based on the same sources as what is public, no harm is done to me by it. If it is unfair or misrepresented or vandalized, we have excellent means of dealing with it, much more effective than most internet sites. DGG ( talk ) 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There seems to be no information in the article that does not already exist in web sources put in place by the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I understand what you're both saying and I'm not disagreeing with you. I see nothing in the article that could be considered even remotely harmful to Dr. Koonce, and if there was I would enthusiastically participate in repairing it. Even if there was contentious info here but it was backed up by a good citation, we would still keep it. But that's not the issue here. She is the subject of the article and she has requested its removal - I don't believe that WP:BIODEL requires that she have a good reason, or a rational or logical reason, or even a reason at all, she just happens to have given one (via nom). The only issue here is whether she is a sufficiently public figure that we can justify ignoring her request, and I believe the answer is no. Ivanvector (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to a policy or precedent that supports that? I am not aware of any. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I was linking to WP:BIODEL, which also has links to WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. They are not extensive policies, and I'm not familiar with any precedents. Wikipedia's definition of non-public figures is not particularly helpful here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However there is also a much more extensive policy on low-profile persons which seems like it applies here. Under "eminence": "holds a position of preeminence, power or authority in a field of research ... usually at more than a locally-significant level. Such a position ... is evidence of projection of self identity into the public consciousness." I would say that holding an endowed chair at an internationally recognized "elite" business school more than satisfies that definition. Therefore I agree we should respectfully decline Dr. Koonce's request and keep this article. Ivanvector (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing this and for doing that. I didn't mean to imply you were up to no good, and I apologize for compelling you to post a link with your personal info; editors should not have to do that. As a courtesy I have removed the link. There is a secure process for confirming your identity if that turns out to be necessary for some reason, but you've already disclosed your conflict of interest and that's really all that's necessary here.
We have very strict policies on biographies of living persons and editors are expected to take them seriously. The policy is extensive, but the key points are that all information must present a neutral point of view and that any information that is in any way likely to be challenged is backed up by very good reliable sources. You could think of Dr. Koonce's page as a curation of information that is publicly available. Part of the policy states that we do not honour deletion requests from public figures, and based on our discussion above the consensus appears to be that Dr. Koonce meets our definition. As such, her page is likely to remain. As for control, that is not entirely correct. Your best bet is to get familiar with our policies on conflicts of interest and to be very careful with that in mind, but you can absolutely participate. You can make noncontroversial edits to the page if you back it up with an independent source, and feel free to suggest improvements by going through the article's talk page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The h-index of 21 is above average for professors in the US and a bit over the borderline adopted in these Afds. (I wish we had better data). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I've never relied too much myself on the h-index number, but I understand why this one is subject to debate.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The significance of a h-index depends on the subject. 21 would not be notable in the biomedical sciences. In business, it would be. That it is is shown by the appointment to an endowed chair.This explicitly meets the requirement for WP:PROF, and by our normal standards there would be no further discussion. Someone who so clearly meets the standard is not borderline. Most professors in the US dod not hold endowed chairs, far from it. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 22 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) 00:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a Commander[edit]

Portrait of a Commander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are dead and redirect to the article. This looks like original research, and purely expresses a personal analysis of the artist's work. I think this is too long and too messy to be maintained, especially with no references. Tco03displays (talk) 14:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • And there's a start. Got to run off now, but I believe that to be a notable stub rather than a truly terrible Wikipedia article that starts off with a biography of Reubens. Neonchameleon (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/29/us-finearts-princessdiana-idUSTRE62S31H20100329 -http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293877/Is-Earl-Spencer-Rubens-9m-fake-Experts-cast-doubt-provenance-painting.html Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks. Should make things easier to find. On the other hand I'm going to take the name as listed by Christies ("ORTRAIT OF A COMMANDER, THREE-QUARTER-LENGTH, BEING DRESSED FOR BATTLE" - legitimately shortened to Portrait of a Commander) over the name as listed by the Daily Mail. Both are legitimate, however Neonchameleon (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll create a redirect in case someone looks up the painting with the name I listed.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) czar ♔ 03:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derby Tel Aviv[edit]

Derby Tel Aviv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references for a first. Are we to have special pages for derbies between local teams? Is this really important or adds something new that cannot be found in the pages relevant to the teams or the national results of the matches? I think this kind of article is unnecessary for Wikipedia. Tco03displays (talk) 13:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 01:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DropMind[edit]

DropMind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrX 13:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 13:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.
  2. The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion does not apply to software merely used in instruction.
  3. The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
  4. It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the software is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, and/or assert notability.
If you can show that Dropmind fits any of those categories, I'd be delighted to see the evidence and will change to a keep. But from what I've seen it doesn't - Google gave me nothing useful just now. But I can't, unfortunately read the Swedish press at all and don't know what e.g. notable newspapers in Sweden would be. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is actively taking part in biggest mind mapping community Biggerplate http://www.biggerplate.com/mindmapping-software/dropmind where people share different maps for education, learning and business.
  2. There is a free desktop version of dropmind that is widely used by students and universities http://www.dropmind.com/free-mindmapping-software; http://www.teachersfirst.com/single.cfm?id=10178;.
  3. there is a free Ipad/iphone lite version of drop mind that is used by student from many universities round the globe https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/dropmind-lite-mind-mapping/id483116055?mt=8;
  4. few independent references where software is reviewed through the years: http://mindmappingsoftwareblog.com/dropmind/ ; http://www.mind-mapping.org/blog/2013/08/dropmind-revisited/ ; http://www.hypershifters.com/blog/2011-09-05/dropmind-web-review-–-part-2.html  ; http://www.appvita.com/2009/05/22/dropmind-mapping-your-thoughts-in-a-more-structured-way/ ; http://www.cloudtools.nl/saas-samenwerken/review-dropmind-web-online-mindmappen-gekoppeld-aan-andere-software/ ; http://sujay-ghosh.blogspot.com/2010/10/dropmind-product-review-picture-your.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gancev (talk • contribs) 21:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC) — Gancev (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

http://biggerplateblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/dropmind-arrives-on-biggerplate.html; http://www.mindmaphub.com/dropmind-joins-biggerplate-mind-map-library/.

http://www.educationtech-nation.com/#!organization-tools/c2417; http://www.indoition.com/de/kreativitaet-produktivitaet-tools-technische-dokumentation.htm; http://bloggingexperiment.com/time-management-tactics-and-resources.

http://mind-map.akamonitor.cz/2011/07/dropmind-mm-software-slideshow-review.html; http://www.mind-mapping.org/blog/2013/08/dropmind-revisited/ ; http://www.freemindparlexemple.fr/2011/08/dropmind-version-3-un-challenger-de.html; http://assistivetek.blogspot.com/2009/12/seavus-dropmind-11-is-released.html; http://digitalmindmap.blogspot.com/2011/12/dropmind-takes-your-research-to-another.html; https://paulhami.edublogs.org/tag/dropmind/; http://www.visual-mapping.com/2009/02/dropmind-brand-new-mind-mapping.html; http://wwwhatsnew.com/2011/04/07/dropmind-siente-piensa-y-disena-tu-mapa-mental/; http://mindmapblog.com/?p=4690.

http://dailyappshow.com/create-a-visual-map-of-your-next-brilliant-idea-with-dropmind-for-ipad; http://torres21.typepad.com/apps/2013/04/dropmind-lite.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zokii tr (talk • contribs) 17:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC) — Zokii tr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Kingston and R-Truth[edit]

Kofi Kingston and R-Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original concern was: Non-notable tag team. Held the belts once, and never teamed since. Fails WP:GNG. — Richard BB 12:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 12:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This still isn't enough to pass WP:GNG; there has not been significant coverage as this guideline requires. — Richard BB 23:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Wrong forum. Not a deletion request, but a move request, see WP:RM.  Sandstein  10:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Barkov[edit]

Aleksander Barkov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The father's name is Alexander, not Aleksander according to various sources. I am proposing we move Jr. to Aleksander Barkov and Sr. to Alexander Barkov --K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep not a correct AFD it should be a move. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 07:38, 26 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 The Legend of Korra. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amon (The Legend of Korra)[edit]

Amon (The Legend of Korra) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Main villain for Legend of Korra season 1; seems to fail on notability. Three sources are cited in the article, neither of which focuses on him. Wired mentions him in briefly in passing, so do the two sources used for the reception section of the article - IGN episode and season reviews, which are primarily summaries ([8], [9]). I looked for reliable sources we should use instead, and there's not much. TOR blog is the only one semi-reliable source that focuses on this character, and by itself it is not enough. LoK is an important series, but outside the title character, nothing from the fictional world it created seems to meet encyclopedic criteria of notability. This entry is much better left to wikia ([10]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdwtalk 01:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gerri Davis[edit]

Gerri Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sadly, Gerri Davis might not meet our WP:ARTIST guidelines at this time. There has been some coverage of her on Artnet, but that's only one reliable secondary source that has written about her somewhat extensively that I have easily been able to find. The other sources are primary or mere mentions. While she has shown at some nice galleries, I can't find strong areas where she would pass ARTIST yet. Sadly, I think it might be WP:TOOSOON for her to be on Wikipedia. She has mere mentions in some notable and non notable sources, and then two articles about herself [11][12]. Perhaps those two are enough to pass GNG? I'm having a tough time making this call. SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alicia DeBrincat[edit]

Alicia DeBrincat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After some research, and reviewing of current citations, this article appears to fail WP:ARTIST, sadly. I like her work, but, all of the citations I have found are mere mentions. Her most notable exhibition appears to be a few pieces in a hotel in NYC. I think right now, it might be WP:TOOSOON for DeBrincat to have their own article. SarahStierch (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alysah Pizarro[edit]

Alysah Pizarro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod (no reason given) - Subject fails WP:NACTOR, which requires significant roles in multiple productions. AussieLegend (✉) 08:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both NACTOR and BIO. --Jprg1966 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Her listing on IMDB is tiny and she's not otherwise notable. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Mkdwtalk 01:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Markes International[edit]

Markes International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability for this small company , because all the references are trivial or promotional, or -- usually -- both. . The prizes mentioned are very local, or trivial , DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:26, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Arellano[edit]

Mayra Arellano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, not sure whether it meets WP:NACTOR but more than one source is needed. The source appears to be a profile on the official site of a convention held in 2004 that Arellano was involved with, and unless it's a particularly notable event doesn't indicate notability. The article (or one probably about the same person) has been deleted on the Spanish Wikipedia for not meeting the equivalent guideline there. Peter James (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 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) 02:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Animorphs#Animorphs. And delete beforehand.  Sandstein  11:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aximili-Esgarrouth-Isthill[edit]

Aximili-Esgarrouth-Isthill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 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) 02:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Raubtier. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Det Finns Bara Krig[edit]

Det Finns Bara Krig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NALBUM - "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." ... Raubtier#Det_Finns_Bara_Krig_.282009.29 includes the track listing, which is all that is listed in this article. As notability is not inherited and this album does not appear (though I know little Swedish to discern whether or not those articles that appear on Google News confer notability) to have gained significant enough media coverage to meet GNG. Go Phightins! 04:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, as there is no discussion of the notability of the album, only a tracklist, and the artist's page already contains the tracklist for this album. As I understand WP:N and WP:NALBUM, the album should demonstrate notability to an English audience to meet notability requirements for English Wikipedia; likewise for Wikipedia in other languages. Therefore Google News hits in Swedish would not demonstrate English notability. A satisfactory source would be, for example, an English-language review demonstrating the importance of the album. Ivanvector (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  11:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-François Boyvin de Bonnetot[edit]

Jean-François Boyvin de Bonnetot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable inventor. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 03:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 05:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable inventor? Fly in the eighteenth century was not for anyone. Izahias (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Samartis[edit]

Nicholas Samartis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CREATIVE. gnews reveals little hits and none is indepth. possible WP:COI LibStar (talk) 03:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 04:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Scheufele[edit]

Caroline Scheufele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article about non notable jewelry executive. DGG ( talk ) 06:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may be promotional, but that does not mean it is unnotable, as she has been the subject of several other articles in reliable sources: [13] [14] In addition, she seems to have won an award from a well known organization: [15] Jinkinson talk to me 16:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete: Although I have not done so as part of the deletion process, I am happy to recover the content into user or draft space on request, to allow it to be re-used in other appropriate places. Harrias talk 13:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Putin[edit]

Roman Putin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual does not seem particularly notable. Main source is more of a resume than anything. Does not seem to have extensive coverage in independent sources.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RSUE.--Launchballer 22:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Russian-language coverage is no more substantial than the English-language coverage. This page, the biography on his company's website (which does not qualify as independent coverage), and a couple of news items where his name is mentioned in passing are the only Russian-language items I've seen that are not also in English. As with the English-language coverage, when Russian sources cover him in depth, the focus of interest is on his relationship to Vladimir Putin. --Orlady (talk) 23:04, 21 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Nowell Graham[edit]

Margaret Nowell Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I tried hard to establish notability (GNG and WP:ARTIST) for Margaret Nowell Graham. You can see my attempt to draft a new article here.

The other sources provided are mere mentions about a fund named after her.

I can't figure out how she passes our WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST guidelines. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. SarahStierch (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean it to be a "harsh" nomination. It's just tough - I know there is a systemtic bias about historical women (and anyone who isn't a white dude, generally, based on my line of research work), I just am really struggling to find much, outside of calling the institutions. It never makes me happy to nominate articles like this, but, the Wikipedian in me would feel like I didn't do my "job" if I didn't bring it to discussion. SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The work at UNC that you mentioned is a part of the North Carolina Collection, and more likely than not was a correspondence between her and another more prominent figure, though it could have been a work of art. The archival format indicated by the worldcat entry and my further research to the UNC library catalog is normally used in storing correspondence. I'm not entirely sure that having material contained in the NCC makes one notable, because the collection contains every undergrad thesis published before the mid-2000s, and I believe they still store all graduate theses and dissertations (they may have moved to electronic, though). It also contains many historical phonebooks and letters between people who may or may not be notable, but simply may be connected to a notable event in North Carolina history. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:43, 24 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. Mkdwtalk 01:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don Keenan (company director)[edit]

Don Keenan (company director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Lacks coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. No rationale for deletion given. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitão Brasil[edit]

Capitão Brasil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP editor 177.161.117.128; no reason given. I am neutral. Ansh666 20:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 20:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Speedy] keep. Capitão Brasil seems to be analogous to a Brazilian Captain America, and judging by a quick Google search is quite well known, even in English. Speedy because no reason was given for deletion in the first place. Article is a mess but can be easily fixed up. Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Power_Rangers_Samurai. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Anne Pirtle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Brittany Anne Pirtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of this subject meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO as her only major role is Power Rangers Samurai (her other roles were just short cameos or extras), no major contributions to the entertainment industry, and no awards or recognitions for her work. I am also nominating her castmate Alex Heartman for the same reason of him not meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO with his only major role being Power Rangers Samurai too and not enough evidence of notability beyond that.

Alex Heartman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Sticks[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Sticks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous AfD (against an earlier incarnation of this article) failed when the previous article was speedily deleted. This band appears to fail all aspects of WP:BAND. Half of the links given are dead, the other half are YouTube links and thus not reliable sources. Safiel (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The previous incarnation of the article was speedied because the original author blanked it, not because any consensus was established, though it did seem that the article would have failed at that time anyway. I don't see that any members of the band would confer notability or are even notable themselves. However, I know this is a stretch, but their claim to having played a gig at the highest elevation in the UK is perhaps notable, and has a verifiable reference. YouTube of course should not be used as a reference, however the other linked articles although dead now would have been published at one time and might be available to a dedicated researcher to improve this article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a review by the BBC, although it's very short and not particularly favourable. Ivanvector (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I repaired one of the dead links to a valid review indicating the band has "already gained a esteemed reputation and a posse of loyal fans." !vote changed to keep. Should also be renamed to The Sticks (band) or (UK band) as appropriate, to disambiguate from The Sticks (album). Ivanvector (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How does any of that pass wp:BAND? Neonchameleon (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggesting that any of those things would have satisfied WP:BAND if they were independently covered. I checked & revised some more of the refs in the article, but I am now seeing that all mentions of the band are published in just one newspaper, which happens to also be located in the town where the band is from. And actually the two that I found were published on the same day. I didn't find any reference to their "highest elevation" gig (that link is also dead). Therefore I now also !vote delete. It's possible they may have been notable at one time but they are not now. Ivanvector (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Naslund[edit]

Amber Naslund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this person meets the requirements for relevance to have their own page. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.183.30.96 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lord[edit]

Rick Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I came across this by way of the Chryzinium AfD. There's just enough here to where it could squeak by a speedy deletion, but I don't see where Lord really passes notability guidelines. He's written one book that doesn't seem to have gotten any coverage per WP:NBOOK and none of his work in film seems to be particularly noteworthy per Wikipedia's guidelines. I can't find any coverage to show that he passes WP:GNG at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chryzinium[edit]

Chryzinium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet criteria of WP:NFILM. I am unable to find multiple reliable sources discussing this film. Proposed deletion contested by author. ... discospinster talk 03:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Santana discography. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 00:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Santana Unofficial Album[edit]

Santana Unofficial Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely obscure unofficial pressing of unknown origin. not even sure this qualifies as important for fans/completionists. needless to say, no refs found. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interface Security Systems[edit]

Interface Security Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article on at most borderline notable company The ref that they are the "leader in cloud managed services" is their own web site; the other refs are mere notices. The extensive duplication in the infobox of all their products is characteristic of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 02:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE Mkdwtalk 01:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fit Couture[edit]

Fit Couture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant evidence of notability DGG ( talk ) 01:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene McCarthy (biologist)[edit]

Eugene McCarthy (biologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. A man with a blog making ridiculous claims, which have been repeated by a few other blogs and less reliable press sources (we don't e.g. use the Daily Mail as a good source for science). JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in fact it makes them more notable as cranks are rare and precious. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health aid+[edit]

Health aid+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any mention of this organization other than its own social network pages.

Also:

  1. Not a reference
  2. Official website
  3. Not a reference
  4. Non-existing link to BBC. I couldn't find it on any web archive either. In fact, there's no mention of this organization on BBC anywhere.
  5. Never mentions the organization
  6. This is a link to an iCloud document. I can't actually see this, because it requires a login.
  7. Not a reference
  8. iCloud
  9. iCloud
  10. Dead link. The archived version makes no mention of the organization.
  11. Not a reference
  12. iCloud
  13. Dead link. The archived version doesn't mention the organization.
  14. Links to a website called "Design to Improve Life". There is no mention of the organization on the entire domain
  15. Dead link. Archived version doesn't mention organization
  16. Dead link. Archived version doesn't mention organization Prof. Squirrel (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Primecoin[edit]

Primecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User:A5b has raised a concern that "the only good source is self-published paper from coin's author", and WP:PROD-ed the article. I believe that this article can potentially be improved, and that a wider community discussion would be of greater benefit. No !vote from me yet, I'm neutral for now. --benlisquareT•C•E 10:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an unpublished, non-peer-reviewed paper by a student in a Computer Science MA program, and thus does little to establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT - Strong support for proposal to merge/redirect into Cryptocurrency, per Stuartyeates GRUcrule (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to impugn you, or anyone in particular; I'm just pointing out that one usually doesn't see this many people arguing against an article's deletion because "it's notable" (or similar) without actually finding any reliable sources to back up their assertion. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that Primecoin isn't notable doesn't agree with Wikipedia's guidelines. The Data Center Knowledge article meets the criteria listed in the general notability guideline. If anyone has ulterior motives here, it's probably you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.148.99 (talk) 05:37, 19 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. It's now several days since the user was blocked, with no indication they'll be back. No prejudice to re-creation by an independent editor. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pheed[edit]

Pheed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD was contested. My concern is that this looks like a creation of banned contributors wiki-pr.com: an article on this topic was previously posted by the blocked contributor Tedteeth01 . —rybec 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles contributed by people named in the Morning277 SPI have been recreated by editors who make few or no other edits. I reported some of them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Morning277 on 22 November but there's been no answer from the sockpuppet investigators, so there's no check-user evidence. I'm asking you to look at the behavioural evidence. The way this article was contributed by Special:Contributions/Social_Mike_Ferlita Social Mike Ferlita fits the pattern: article created in a single edit, then account abandoned. The help request also fits a pattern. Compare to these:

Extended content

[21]

Helping my sandbox

hello Faizan. i am new to Wikipedia and looking to add my article through the sandbox. i am having difficulties with red errors in the reference section. could you guide me through the process. S72013 (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[22]

Sandbox Work

Hello... I'm new to Wikipedia and not sure how to use talkback to your page. Sorry!!! I'm trying out this sandbox thing and I need help with references, can you aid me? Bhasinnitish (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[23]

Hey there, I'm working in the sandbox and a bit overwhelmed with my references not working. I could use some assistance? --Wam'tchire (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Orangemike. Do you think you could help me out with an article in my sandbox? I'm trying to add this reference but for some reason can't code it in properly. This is the link I want to add: http://personaldemocracy.com/company-reviews-2010/ddc-advocacy

Do you think you could help me out? Ficoman86 (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

User_talk:Orangemike/Archive_24#References_help

Hello Lvivske. I have looked at all your contributions and appreciate the work you have contributed to Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me out with the page on my sandbox. Any advice or tips would be helpful, but I was mainly hoping you could help me out with this reference: http://www.justrelaxmagazine.co.uk/#/tee-ashira/4575254751 I was trying to write out the citation so that I could add some more text, but the citation just wouldn't work out for me. Could you help me out? Awaisrahman007 (talk) 17:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

[24]

new page pheed

Hey DMacks, I put some basics down on Pheed, the social networking company and social network. When I created the page I got a little message telling me to let you know I started the page since you deleted it when it was not notable back in 2011. I used a few articles from Forbes and Rolling Stone to get it started. Hope this research helps you guys.

[25]

—rybec 19:02, 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, Randykitty (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. GB fan 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Airlines Flight 2[edit]

Japan Airlines Flight 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete lack of notability, or compliance with guidelines in WP:Aircrash Petebutt (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aircraft accidents and incidents. Not every plane crash (this was not even a crash, more of a water landing) with lots of people on board is significant. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Dahl, Julia. "REPORT: SHOTS FIRED AT ARAPAHOE HS IN CENTENNIAL, COLO". CBS News. Retrieved 13 December 2013.
More