< 14 December	16 December >

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Secret ^account 00:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The future of work is changing[edit]

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

Declined PROD. This is an essay that would need a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopedic. Chris857 (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as above. This looks like an original essay with citations sprinkled throughout to give it legitimacy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyright violations.... Globalization paragraph copied from [1] Various sentences copied from [2]. What is not copied is original research. Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple problems, pretty clear example of what wikipediia is WP:NOT.LM2000 (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essay. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sindhu Biju[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The only claim to notability is the Guinness record for hosting the longest radio talk show but then that's a case of WP:ONEEVENT. De728631 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC) De728631 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sindhu Biju and Mithun Ramesh. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:48, 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 speedy delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kelechi Onyenachi[edit]

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

A high school junior who plays American football. Has only made four starts. A promotional piece. Unable to find any reliable refs about him. Prod was removed for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a promotional piece. Stats aren't even all that impressive for a high school player at his peer level. I would support a WP:SPEEDY on this one per G-11 and possibly A-7.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No indication of notability--fails NGRIDIRON and GNG. Puff piece.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 18:58, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alsamarketing[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable corporation. All sources are primary or simply on-line listings. Salimfadhley (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references for it, no news notability; it simply doesn't meet basic WP:WEB. Just because it's a Salesforce member doesn't make it notable WP:INHERITORG --CyberXRef^talk 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am finding no substantial coverage of this firm. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any sources that would help to support WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - company article lacking RS references to establish notability. A search turned up no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:55, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

City guard (Poland)[edit]

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

Redirect stub article and merge into Law enforcement in Poland article. Topic isn't significant enough to stand on it's own even in PL:WP. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No argument in favour of deletion is presented in the nomination. This is clearly a valid article subject. --Soman (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale is not present in the nomination. For examples of valid deletion reasons, see WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#1. James500 (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No argument for deletion is given. Also it is an important topic. It needs work and considerable expansion, but is a valid topic. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 11:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Given that there is a non-stub article on the subject in the Polish Wikipedia, it seems that this would be expandable into a fuller article -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 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) 01:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1984 Grote Prjis van Zolder[edit]

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

Individual events of a third tier racing circuit fail WP:GNG. A whole slew of these type articles were deleted here. ...William 21:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the |list of Belgium-related deletion discussions....William 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions....William 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

DELETE: Per nomination. I would individually note that it is odd that 1984 Grote Prjis van Zolder has an article when Grote Prjis van Zolder does not. What makes individual runnings of an event noteworthy if the event as a whole is not? --Falcadore (talk) 00:21, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asrar Alam[edit]

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

Notability not established. I can't find any sources that aren't by Asrar Alam himself. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many books? zero cites. Brainy J says it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete The Urdu Wikipedia has a better entry. Though it doesn't have cites. His name translates as "Mystery" or "Secret" which is a common word complicating searches. To me it looks possibly notable, but the homepage has bombastic claims ("intellectual authority and leading Islamic scholar") which combined with lack of other sourcing makes it suspect. -- GreenC 07:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chopin (ship)[edit]

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

Questionable notability Ajh1492 (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per long-standing convention that vessels of 100'/100 tons are likely to be notable enough to sustain independent articles. Sources independent of the subject are likely to exist in the Polish language. Mjroots (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. After Mjroots expansion, and note on convention, this seems much better. There are not many pl sources, but those articles [3][4] at TVN24 seems to satisfy GNG requirement for coverage by mainstream, reliable sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those sources refer to Fryderyk Chopin (ship). Suggest a search of Polish sources using "Chopin" and "Mikołajki" might prove fruitful. Chopin has a blue hull, Fryderyk Chopin has a white hull. Mjroots (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided evidencing notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sobiepan (talk) 17:05, 17 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bund für Arbeiterbildung[edit]

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

Delete and merge content into German Socialist Labour Party in Poland article Ajh1492 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 21:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No argument is presented as to why this article ought to be deleted. Notability is established in the article. Merging the article into the DSAP article is not helpful, as this org had separate structures (not a branch of the party as such). --Soman (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - If the article is deleted, a merge to another article will be difficult for most Wikipedia editors, except administrators. Merge discussions can occur on article talk pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CCGS Ann Harvey[edit]

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

Subject of article does not appear to be notable. There are no references independent of the subject. Op47 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here is independent coverage of this Canadian Coast Guard ship. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is long-standing precedent that commissioned vessels of military and coast guard forces are notable. Also, there is (as noted) coverage available; the nominator is reminded that there is no requirement, outside of BLP subjects, that references be included in an article, only that they exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's working, so the old girl has her notability. 'nough said. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This ship will have been covered in all of the annual editions of Jane's Fighting Ships since 1987, as well as the semi-regular US Naval Institute guide to world navies, so the claim that there are no independent references available is not correct, and suggests a failure to actually look for such references before nominating the article for deletion. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 18 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. I suggest a merge discussion as a way forward. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Katyń[edit]

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

Article should be deleted and content merged into Katyn massacre article. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajh1492 (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so obvious, the article is rather about the Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919–24) than about Katyń massacre.Xx236 (talk) 07:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close - If the article is deleted, a merge to another article will be difficult for most Wikipedia editors, except administrators. Merge discussions can occur on article talk pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources that such propaganda strategy exists. --DonaldDuck (talk) 10:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Academic sources exist by Inessa Yazhborovska, eg. quoted here Катынское дело: на пути к правде / Яжборовская И. С. Вопросы истории, № 5, Май 2011, C. 22-35. BTW the article says that such strategy existed. In fact it is continued in Russia Историк Збигнев Карпусь: «Политика мешает научной работе» The original article started with words Soviet and Russian propaganda strategy, only recently rewritten to was a Soviet propaganda strategy. Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Anti-Katyn movie plans [5].Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with procedural close. Should be a merge discussion. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:21, 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rostyslav Dotsenko[edit]

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

effectively unsourced BLP The Banner talk 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article says he died in 2012. How is this a WP:BLP? Are you disputing the fact that he is dead? His page on Ukrainian Wikipedia has sources[6] - some confirm the date of death. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- oops, overlooked that. The Banner talk 11:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request speedy close due to incorrect nomination as nominator. The Banner talk 11:24, 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 Keep. There is a clear consensus that this article should not be deleted. There is some feeling that the article should be moved, or that it should be merged into another article, but no consensus for either. However, this closure is made without prejudice against raising either or both of those possibilities for further discussion on the article's talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Couch[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Sensational news of no long term significance. ...William 19:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions....William 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions....William 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I put it to you the New York Times does not seem to agree:

But in recent days, the implications of being rich have set off an emotional, angry debate that has stretched far beyond the North Texas suburbs, after a juvenile court judge sentenced a 16-year-old from a well-off family to 10 years’ probation for killing four people in a drunken-driving crash. (from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/us/teenagers-sentence-in-fatal-drunken-driving-case-stirs-affluenza-debate.html?_r=1&) --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is unquestionably notable and deserves mentioning due to widespread media coverage alone. Also, judging by the facts that you do not propose any alternative solution to preserving this information, you have the gall to use phrase such as "no long term significance" while you yourself create such irrelevant articles like Viasa Flight 897 and that you have userboxes such as "This user is a member of WikiProject US Courts and judges" on your user page makes me believe that you are proposing this article deletion NOT because your care about Wikipedia and its well-being BUT because you are pursuing some kind of personal agenda, most likely related to one of your personal friends/relatives or former co-workers. 98.116.9.131 (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ethan Couch case This case is indisputably notable, but I don't think there's any way to find enough biographical information on this guy without raising privacy concerns. The Ashley Todd mugging hoax comes to mind here. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Ethan Couch case The case has recieved nationwide/international publicity and interest and easily meets notability requirements. Probably should be retitled though. Equilibrium007 (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
REDIRECT to Ethan Crouch Case This does have long term consequences because of potential Case Law and could be considered notable and general societal impact. Tragicfame (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is COUCH, not CROUCH. Don't cover up for this quadruple murderer, keep the wiki page alive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.18.111.245 (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to Ethan Couch Case This case does sound like it has a social impact. I don't see how Ethan Couch is notable apart from the case, and will refrain from commenting on him personally. Note that I came to the page from Crooked Timber, which linked to the current page. So a redirect is appropriate. (http://crookedtimber.org/2013/12/16/affluenza-as-liars-paradox/) DavidHobby (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethan Couch Case -- the case itself is more than notable in its perversion of basic legal principles. Simple deletion is not an option. Trigaranus (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess Redirect to the mentioned article is the best.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's too early to tell if this case will engender any sort of lasting change, and unless it does, it's just yet another example of wealth buying privilege. If it DOES cause change, we can always recreate it later. I appreciate people see deleting the page as "covering" for Ethan, but WP should not be used as a scarlet letter. - Drlight11 (talk) 17:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This should not be deleted, regardless of outcome, because it's an interesting and notable case that spawned a (however short-lived) social controversy. Keeping it costs Wikipedia nothing while deleting it would make it that much harder to find out information about this. I was researching the topic and learned a lot from the Wikipedia page. -Arcataroger (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well referenced and passes notability. I found it when I wanted to learn more about Ethan Couch. --Nowa (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is the central figure in what has already become an important legal case, one that has injected a novel legal theory into real life. Brimba (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethan Couch Case; while I think the case itself will have its own legal and social repercussions and is certainly notable, I do not believe Ethan Couch himself is very notable. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This case isn't going away. Its close to the top of many front pages today. Having an article about both the case and one or more principals involved isn't problematic in my opinion. Tjc (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The facts of the case are needed to judge the validity of the sentence. People who hear about a teen getting probation for four deaths need to know the details to judge whether justice was served. Adallas (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I count on wikipedia to provide the facts of this incident. The article does not seem like a judgment. It is very factual and it helps me to quickly understand what's happening in this case. Please keep this page. We can easily judge for ourselves without wikipedia but at least wikipedia is there to present the facts. I hate trollish people in wikipedia who dispute and whine and complain about every wiki page/article/entry because they are superior Western intellectual beings. Wikipedia is more of a resource. It is not an encyclopedia per say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.211.190.11 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the suggested redirect target does not exist, and never has existed, I can only assume that the editors saying "redirect" actually mean "keep and rename". JamesBWatson (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think you all mean MOVE, which is not my !vote.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This person is an example of the use of Affluenza#As_a_legal_defense and the content ought to be condensed and then merged there. I don't think this meets the third criteria of WP:BLP1E (so shouldn't remain as a stand-alone article), particularly since the example there is someone that tried to assassinate an American President. I'm also concerned that he's a juvenile (NPR declined to even name him on the air), although I'm not aware whether that raises any policy issue for us.--Chaser (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may have it backward on WP:BLP1E. If the event is significant and if the person's role is well documented, then there should be a BLP. John Hinckley, Jr. is provided as an example to show when this is the case.--Nowa (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect with history - My first instinct is that the "Ethan Couch case" is a key story regarding the affluenza defense. With that being said, at a minimum, the article should be redirected with history to Affluenza#As_a_legal_defense, if not "Ethan Couch case". --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- the extent of sources available takes us well beyond any prospect of deletion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eri Miyajima[edit]

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

There is no evidence of notability. Neither the one source referenced in the article nor the external links does more than show that she has acted in numerous films, while giving no indication whether she had major roles. Google and other searches, whether for "Eri Miyajima" or for "宮島依里", produce exactly the kind of coverage one would expect for an actor with a steady flow of minor roles, not what one would expect of anyone with "significant roles in multiple notable films" (quoted from WP:ENTERTAINER, my emphasis). Thus, for example, one gets Wikipedia and other wikis, Facebook, IMDb, etc etc, together with numerous pages such as this, this, this, this, this, and this, which give only trivial information (at most a list of her films or similar, in many cases less than that), but no substantial coverage. (For convenience, here are links to Google translations of the Japanese language pages in the above list: [7], [8], [9].) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You misquoted WP:ENTERTAINER. It says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Kana is one of the five main characters in Haibane Renmei, so that is a notable acting role in a notable television series. A long career doing work on multiple notable shows. Dream Focus 09:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Misquoted"? OK, because the largest part of the article is headed "Filmography", I just quoted the part that said "films", and didn't bother to include "television shows, stage performances, or other productions", but I now see that I should have included "televison". However, that is really not the issue: the issue is whether he has had "significant roles in multiple ... productions", irrespective of whether they were films, television programmes, or whatever. Even if we assume that you are right in stating that the part in Haibane Renmei is a notable acting role in a notable television series, that is just a role in one production, not roles in "multiple" productions. And the fact remains that there is no source, either cited in the article under discussion, cited in the article you link to, nor anywhere else that I can find, that gives significant coverage, or even confirms that he has had any major roles. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Voice actress has had major roles in Haibane Renmei, where she was part of the core group of characters, PoPoLoCrois, where she voiced one of the main characters, and Sol Bianca: The Legacy, where she also voiced one of the main characters. Base on incoming links, she also had significant roles in Kanzen Shouri Daiteioh and Heroman. These roles clearly establishes her as notable per WP:ENTERTAINER. The real problem is the lack of reliable sources, which will only be available in Japanese print magazines and would not show up in a Google search. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although sources are fairly hard to find, at least in English, she passes WP:ENTERTAINER since she's had multiple major roles in anime. Japanese sources would be appreciated, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:41, 17 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. Feel free to purpose merges and redirects on the talk pages. SarahStierch (talk) 03:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of instrumental number ones on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I believe that this should be merged into Instrumental. I have believed that since December 2011 and eventually made the move April 2013. It has now been opposed. There is very little content in this article that is not in Instrumental. Laun chba ller 18:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see any debate over whether this should be merged. Was there a merger discussion? AfD is not the location to secure support for merging: see Wikipedia:Merging for the correct procedure. --Colapeninsula (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One article is about instrumentals in general, the other a country-specific list. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the image needs to be removed, does not relate to a List. Also it needs cleanup (removing references for wikilinked entries), meets WP:SALAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriendrew (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article's biggest problem is its rather unclear inclusion criteria – Animals has lyrics ("MOTHERFLIPPIN' ANIMALS!!"), and I seem to recall Flat Beat having some lyrics at the start as well. By the article's own admission, Hoots Mon is "not fully instrumental". And what about Axel F by Crazy Frog? Is that an instrumental? This is where I feel the waters get rather muddied. If the inclusion criteria were more stringently laid out, I'd be more likely to !vote keep. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:45, 20 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. Speedied under G4 SarahStierch (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Fields[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

May fail our general notability guidelines for sports people. I could be wrong though, and the NBA Development League counts as something more. I failed to find any reliable secondary sources. SarahStierch (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete → the creator of the article, User:Theo Jeffries, re-created this 6 months after the original deletion discussion resulted in Delete. He was also the creator of the original article as well, therefore he knowingly disrespected the AfD process and tried to avoid detection by waiting so long. Since this second nomination is really just an unnecessary formality of a vandal re-creating the first AfD, this shouldn't even have to go to a !vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NHOOP and GNG with a lack of significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:41, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meesam Zaidi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No significant sources. Soapboxing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. My search came up with nothing notable. This is just someone's vanity page.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt I voted delete last time and see no new significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any other possibly applicable specialty guideline. --Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 18 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Asia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted under AfD in 2007, unanimously, I might add. It was subsequently recreated a year or two later. Since then, no sources have been added. It had been deleted for being a non notable neologism. No evidence of the term having become notable since then. Everything said in the 2007 AfD still seems to stand. Safiel (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find evidence that "Latin Asia" is a notable concept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The problem is that both the old article, if you can see here, and the new article, were about rarely-used terms, all of which are being conflated into one concept. Does it refer to the old Roman provinces of Asia Minor? Does it refer to what some French Nationalists refer to Viet Nam? Does it refer to the mixed cultural inheritance of the Filipino people living in the diaspora? Bearian (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it has no sources, I think there is a possibility that the person who created this article invented the term to begin with, I did a quick google search for Latin Asia and can't see any of the results referring to the topic discussed in this article--The ChampionMan 1234 05:48, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ekonomist (Serbia)[edit]

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

Not notable, advert-like, completely unsourced, fails to meet GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam (Unsourced). Compare Pule cheese. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearian. 23 editor (talk) 20:57, 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukineko[edit]

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

Quite possibly a hoax, and if not then non-notable. Unreferenced since creation in August 2011, and I can find no reliable source on Google. Created by an apparent SPA. Peridon (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this shrine exists, I have been unable to find evidence of notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. no sources to show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:20, 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 speedy delete per WP:G5. The creator is a sockpuppet of User:The Deadly TV series. —DoRD (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sherlock (film)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability and may even be made up. Fails WP:NFILM. - Mr X 14:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for not checking that. I already softblocked the author account and deleted the userpage cross-space redirect. I thought I'd leave the matter of the article to others or it would be three things to offend the creator. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CSD#G3 this. It is a hoax, no such film, actors do not exist.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also the image is from the tv series--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanca Luna[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBOX and the article's only source is a link to her fight record (which is minor).204.126.132.231 (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need reliable sources. That particular reference is not going to be enough to provide that this boxer is notable. Fails. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOX.Mdtemp (talk) 16:50, 18 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Yeoh[edit]

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

Lacks notability Huang (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not of major importance, her role will be shown in the main articles of the movies that she's acted in. --MrRatermat2 (talk) 11:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, it does not have any notabilities. Two sources that I saw are not enough to reach the guidelines. Therefore, not notable. Ashbeckjonathan (talk) 01:31, 18 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) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern University's Collegiate Alternative Investments Summit[edit]

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

Article about a student-run conference in existence for only 2 years. No independent sources or notability claimed to the topic's significance. Only editor appears to have strong personal relationship with the topic, see http://www.linkedin.com/in/dylanklopp?_mSplash=1 Witty lama 08:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though I am close to the organization, I am following the guidelines and am presenting unbiased information from their website and other sources into one article. I am still looking for more third party references to meet the requirements. This is a reoccurring event, held annually and is supported and sponsored by large institutions. Dklopp (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dklopp - I realise you're new to Wikipedia and don't mean for you to take this as a rejection of your efforts. Thank you for taking the time to create such a nicely formatted article. The question here is "notability" - which is our term for whether a given topic has received independent attention worthy to make it sufficiently important to warrant a WP entry. Not every conference (for example) should be in WP, so you would need to prove that this one should be - using third party sources that express the significance of the event (not merely its existence). You'll see therefore why citations to the event's own website is not sufficient for proving notability - everyone likes to think they are important but no one is objective about themselves :-) Witty lama 01:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Easily fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:GNG. Has not received widespread, independent coverage. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Michigan's Adventure. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corkscrew (Michigan's Adventure)[edit]

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

It is not at all clear that this one ride at an amusement park satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Michigan's Adventure p b p 18:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Michigan's Adventure. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checking the categories on that pages - there are hundreds of article on Wiki on rollercoasters. Rmhermen (talk) 18:41, 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 merge to Boeing_737#Accidents_and_incidents. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Air Flight 386[edit]

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

OK good article but is it notable - probably not, just another runeay over-run, no fatalities, no lasting effects such as procedures stc., interesting but not encyclopaedic Petebutt (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Boeing_737#Accidents_and_incidents and 2002 in aviation, 2-3 sentences there may suffice. Brandmeister^talk 12:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Brandmeister, along with perhaps a mention in the Lion Air article. While worthy of mention in type/airline/airport articles, this sort of accident does not rise to the level of notability that is needed for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment if this discussion results in anything other than keep, the summary at Sultan Syarif Kasim II International Airport#Accidents and incidents should be expanded. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preditas Inc[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Non-database source are actually three leads to the same article including them on a list of employers that are aggressively hiring, a minor mention. Zero Gnews hits. Googling "Preditas Inc." or Preditas Kothari (last is last name of founder, to separate other uses of the name) finds no google hits of real significance. Nat Gertler (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A 2013 start-up firm with no evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability. (Indeed, none is claimed in the article, so it could be a CSD A7?) Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - very new start-up; the coverage is not significant. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We are not trying to promote our company - the page has been created by nehapant19 for reasons best known to him. Agree with the administrators that the page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preditas (talk • contribs) 07:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Do I see WP:SNOW? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:21, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Selberg[edit]

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and fails to state a reason the subject would be notable in lieu of sources under WP:ANYBIO. The one source offered is from MetaCrawler, which is not independent and offers only a one-sentence mention of the subject. By Googling, I did find a Seattle Times blog entry remarking on the subject's blog but I think that falls short of what our guidelines ask. Everything else I could find appeared to be WP:PRIMARY. Though not a reason to delete, I note in addition that the subject appears to have created the article himself, a practice we discourage per WP:AUTO and WP:NOTHERE. Msnicki (talk) 03:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case. There are plenty of primary sources that could be used to build up a decent article, either as external links or notes: his work on the Mathematics Genealogy Project, his doctoral dissertation, an interview on a blog, his paper on Metacrawler, and his patents. I found at least one book that mentions him, and what appears to be his political work. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed several WP:PRIMARY sources. But none of these can be used to establish notability, which is all we care about at AfD. His PhD does not confer notability per WP:DEGREE nor does the fact he wrote a thesis; that's something all PhDs have to do. If his works were widely cited, that might be offered as evidence for a presumption of notability under WP:CREATIVE, but in fact his works have not been particularly widely cited. His most cited paper on MetaCrawler received 396 citations; the subject's co-author and advisor, by contrast, has 13 papers that got more citations, 3 of them receiving over 1000 citations. The subject's thesis received just 73 citations. The only other paper for which the subject was the sole author received just 10 citations. These are not compelling numbers on which to base a claim of presumed notability under WP:CREATIVE. The subject does have 7 patents but this is not a remarkable number for any developer at a firm like Microsoft or Amazon with an aggressive IP policy. More to the point, from WP:PATENTS, "Patent applications and issued patents must be treated as self-published, non-independent, primary sources for Wikipedia purposes." His patents do not establish notability. The remaining sources are equally unhelpful. Msnicki (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The Google books search may indicate that he meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics), particularly number 7: The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. He is mentioned in a great many books, but not substantially. So is there an impact or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet GNG and basically notable just for one thing. A redirect will do. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a redirect to MetaCrawler seems very appropriate. Msnicki (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If he's notable, even for just one thing, then he meets GNG. Sancho 17:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're confusing "notable" in the common sense of the word and wiki/GNG-notable, which means significant coverage about him personally rather than noted (in passing) for having done something notable. We do have guidelines like WP:BIO1E and WP:PSEUDO that in fact suggest not writing this kind of article when the subject has not received coverage focused on him. The federatedsearchblog.com interview for example only asked him about MetaCrawler, so it's not really helpful in fleshing out a biography. Someone not using his real name (talk) 00:15, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2008[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of UK R&B Chart number-one singles of 2008

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

Article was first flagged in August 2010 as no sources were referenced at all. I have cleared up the other pages and referenced these from the Official Charts archive [10] but it only goes back to October 10, 2009. I can't find any reliable source for the R&B charts predating this and so believe it is best that this article be deleted, as per WP:SOURCE. Davidmichaelscott (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related number-one albums page for similar reasons. Davidmichaelscott (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 20:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:32, 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) 03:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce G. Blair[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. Non-notable commentator, and self-proclaimed expert. Article has no sources or substance, reads like a CV. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not only self-proclaimed. NYT described him as one in 1991: "... experts like the Brookings Institution's Bruce Blair ..." Sancho 22:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A quick search turns out that he is on the faculty at Princeton as of May, 2013 and is currently (Dec, 2013) on the U.S. Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board That could certainly be used to argue that he is qualified to be called an expert, and that he is viewed as one by these organizations. Thet0rp (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 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) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - needs more refs but he was frequently quoted in the year 2000 era. If we keep AfDing article because there aren't enough editors to beef them up, soon there won't be any wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has been established as a notable authority on this subject cited in prominent publications, such as the NYT and Washington Post, and has testified before Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmars122 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that there are a lot of good people with lots of refs whose bios need updating. So many articles, so little time, even if you aren't obstructed. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a quick news search shows he has recently been quoted by many respectable news organization on nuclear weapons and security. User:shingkeeyu ([[User talk:shingkeeyu|Talk]) 10:30, 20 December 2013 (PST)

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Iqrar Haroon[edit]

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

Poorly written article, more like a resume. But my concern is not writing style. It fails our notability guideline for biographies, with no significant mention in a reliable, secondary source. It was PRODed earlier (3 years ago) but the editor who started it didn't agree to it. SMS ^Talk 13:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS ^Talk 13:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 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) 02:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. With no prejudice against renomination Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crowe & Dunlevy[edit]

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

Aside from having many changes of partnership name, I do not see anything notable here. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, as approving editor at AfC. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Plenty of GHits, GNews, GBooks, 45 hits on JSTOR. GregJackP Boomer! 04:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Law firm articles can be hard to deal with because there's often a lot of inherent promotional content, and while larger firms get lots of mentions in the press, it's not always obvious how to distinguish "routine" coverage from "substantive" coverage. In this case, the firm is a bona fide heavyweight in Oklahoma, and (although the current article doesn't mention it) it's had some significant members: federal appeals judge Jerome Holmes, first black judge on the 10th Circuit, came from there [11] as did Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh [12][13][14]; the firm also got a lot of mention in connection with its representation of Kerr-McGee in the Karen Silkwood case [15][16][17]. I note a problem with the one of the article's references, a piece from the Journal Record (which is often a good source for information on Oklahoma business topics) entitled "189 Attorneys Have Served Crowe & Dunlevy", that is actually linked to an Oklahoman article instead; there's an different article about the firm by the same reporter on Questia [18] and apparently a bunch of others, but unfortunately my Questia subscription has expired. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 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) 02:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Hernández Vázquez[edit]

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

Unverifiable & general notability missed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.75.233 (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I completed the IP nomination (rationale copied from talk page) and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 11:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep Weakly notable producer. - Altenmann >t 18:35, 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) 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Groundswell group[edit]

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

Conspiracy theory. "exposed" ... "conservative cabal" Does not appear to have lasting notability, MSNBC for example does not seem to have any other coverage other than the single article. (By their topics system) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC): Keep. This is not "conspiracy theory" in any way. That Groundswell exists is not in question--the members named it themselves, and they were clear in their goals and methods as well as in keeping the group secret. The group members included several major players in Washington DC. The article has numerous citations to legitimate sources Localemediamonitor (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Multiple independent significant coverage. - Altenmann >t 18:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you find any coverage outside of the brief news window cited in the article? See WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. This seems to be a single, isolated piece of sensationalism. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:56, 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) 02:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article isn't the best written, and the sources are in a specific time-frame, but I think the amount of media coverage, in combination with the individuals who are a part of the group, make it notable. I know that notability is not inherited, but I think the main reason it got a decent amount of media coverage at the time was because of its members, and it seems to me a group of notable individuals getting together to shape policy, and that had substantial media coverage when its existence was found out, is notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But, as you acknowledge, the group does not receive notability simply from its members. It needs to have some sort of lasting "claim to fame" - as far as I can tell, this is not even a famous group of famous people. To give an example, if a group of celebrities had a party, and there was some reporting on that party, would the party be notable? No, because the party had no lasting significance. I believe this is a similar situation (with the added problems of casting negative aspersions on people.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 00:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources exist that gave it significant coverage in more than one outlet, and shows that it garnered significant media attention. As such, I feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This isn't even close. The organization is covered in detail by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Meets both criteria of WP:NGO: national scope and verification by multiple third party RSs. BusterD (talk) 01:08, 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 delete. Mkdw ^talk 01:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Lights (radio station)[edit]

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

No assertion or evidence of notability. Trivialist (talk) 12:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:28, 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) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. No assertion of notability. Station has only been online for two weeks, how could it be? Ivanvector (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete sources are all primary or unreliable. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actronics[edit]

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

Only one example of third-party coverage. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems with the display of information. It is bad and all over the place but... it could be recovered but not at this state. I will try to keep this article afloat. I am neutral. Sipslice11 (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:44, 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) 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Given the wide range of worldwide firms named "Actronics", this is better sought through a (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) but I am finding nothing more/better than the nominator did (and note that the article's claim to notability is not supported by that ref which describes the firm as just "one of Europe’s market leaders in..." its specialist field). I am not seeing encyclopaedic notability here: fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 09:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Cantave[edit]

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

Not notable & promotional. Career consists of being a chef at an apparently non-notable catering company, competing once on one reality cooking program, appearing as a guest of various programs, and supporting to an unspecified extent a very minor charity--support for which for which there is no documentation except herself. Promotional content consists of 50% of the article on her school career and 50% name-dropping -- apparently trying to get notability on the basis of the notable people she cooked for , in which case every caterer in manhattan and brooklyn is probably notable References are all PR, mostly in publications not reliable for notability, the best of which is a interview on Fox Business Network. or both. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is promotional and relies heavily on notability-by-association. JSFarman (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 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, KTC (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this article lacks notability and does seem quite promotional. As such I move that, unless immediate alterations are made to show the notability of Vanessa Cantave, this article be deleted for failing to meet any criteria of WP:BIO. CKBrown1000 ^talk 21:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs help, but, in my eyes, she passes our general notability guidelines. I'm gonna cry a bit of systematic bias here. She's been featured in the Huffington Post, Uptown (which, based on our average editor demographic I doubt many people who edit Wikipedia read - it's a publication geared towards rich African Americans), Nicole Gibbon's blog (Nicole Gibbons), Womenetics (one of the most well known women leadership organizations, hell, I read their blog regularly), she's been featured on Rocco DiSpirto's [19] television show, has been interviewed on Fox News, twice on CBS New York, Kreyolicious which is pretty much the only hipster Haitian-American news publication in the world, Black Enterprise[20][21], the Today Show, she's been on Better (TV series) multiple times[22][23][24][25], AOL.com[26], New York Post, mentioned in the Wall Street Journal, Bobby Deen's cooking show[27]....and I'm spent. SarahStierch (talk) 03:51, 12 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) 02:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - upon a review of sources presented above by User:SarahStierch, the subject meets WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on User:SarahStierch's sources and WP:BASIC. Sancho 17:29, 23 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 Convert to disambiguation page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bichir family[edit]

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

Non-notable family - the only Bichir family I can find discussed are a group of African fishes. All the members of the family have articles but that doesn't make the family notable in the way the Rockefeller family is (and I'm not convinced the father is notable). Dougweller (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An option may be to convert this to a disambiguation page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should be changed to Birchir (surname). Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 13 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) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a disambiguation page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 17:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of coats of arms[edit]

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

This list article should have been displaced with Category:Coats of arms years ago, the list is unnecessary. Arms Jones (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CLN proposer has offered no valid reason why this should be deleted. Why is the list unnecessary? Why is this better treated as a category? This article is valuable because a hierarchical list can convey information over and above categories. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no other information in the list than a number of links. Some lists may be valuable, if the links are explained or grouped in certain way, but not this list: there is nothing more to this list than the links. Who is updating it? Some of the links are misspelled and go to redirects. A category is self-updating and hierarchy is better treated by subcategories. Lists like this was used in Wikipedia ten years ago, before categories were built out. Arms Jones (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has a messy layout, like noone has given it any real thought. The hierarchy of the list is unclear, sometimes cities come directly under countries, other times under subdivisions. In some cases links are placed in the wrong place in the hierarchy, as compared to where a city is acctually situated. Many coats of arms which should be at least mentioned in a list like this, are not there. Some links doesn't go to articles but just to file images, which doesn't explain anything to the reader; if you should just show images, it is better to show them in a gallery together with other images. Many links are red. Very few articles link to this list, in spite of the fact it has been around for years. This list shows none of the advantages of lists stated in WP:CLN but many of the disadvantages. Colapeninsula, in what way is this list better than Category:Coats of arms? Arms Jones (talk) 15:43, 10 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) 02:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but purge. National and provincial coat of arms should certainly be in, but those for towns should be purged. Coats of arms of monarchs and (where siginificantly different) heirs, but those for other members of the royal family should be purged, as should those for noble families: rename to National and provincial coats of arms, possibly splitting out the royal ones, but they are for the head of state. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SWiK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First, WP:WEB. A simple google search for swik returns no results (except the actual wikipedia entry as number one). Results for swik.net gives pretty much the same results except there appears to be just one single article from zdnet about swik with minimal useful info. Other than that one single article when the site first launched in 05, there is absolutly nothing.

Then, WP:CITE. The article is about a website 'swik.net' which is dead. The infobox says the owner is [28]. That site is dead as well. A google search for sourcelabs.com brings no useful results. The first reference in the list is Alexa.com which is used for the site rank only. The third reference is another dead link. The only real proof that this site even really existed is the Linux Magazine article from 2005 (which all the links in that article are dead as well).

And lastly, WP:ORIGINAL. The last one third of that article talks about an event that could not be sourced reliably anywhere, entirely original research. I couldn't find absolutely anything about that anywhere.

As from the previous nomination for deletion, the O'Reilly Radar no longer exists. This is ridiculous, you shouldn't need to go to the ends of the earth the find the little source left as a refernce, it's just not notable enough to stay. CyberXRef^talk 02:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The 2008 AfD concluded without consensus, on the basis of a smattering of coverage of potentially interesting new resources 3 years previously. That coverage was hardly more than just note-of-existence, and the product's lack of progress / disappearance since then verifies that this does not meet WP:NWEB notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have to discard many "keep" opinions, including most of the "Strong keep and improve" variety, because they do not address the sourcing situation, but only assert notability, or even argue that reliable sources are not needed, which is incorrect. Among the remaining opinions, there is consensus that the sources are insufficiently reliable to support an article at this time. Sandstein 10:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feathercoin[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Last discussion resulted in a no consensus. Almost all sources (minus the Tech Cocktail) are either technical documentation, blogs, or forum posts. Article is in a much better shape than last time, but I believe that it isn't enough to pave through. [citation needed] 02:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There seems to be quite a bit of coverage of this in somewhat diverse publications, such as San Francisco Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, and The Economic Times, for example, along with several noted in the original AfD. I'm surprised that discussion was determined to be a no consensus result, it seemed like the delete arguments were all addressed when several sources were provided. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources provided by Ivanvector above are only trivial mentions, and not the significant coverage that is required to demonstrate notability. The same is true of the sources provided in the last Afd. My searching isn't turning up anything better. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs to reliable sources provided mention feathercoin in 1 sentence (or less). A search finds passing mentions, numerous forum posts, and promotional sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by a now-blocked user as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Google search did not find any relevant sources beyond those presented by Ivanvector, all of which are just passing mentions. Smite-Meister (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Feathercoin is new to the crypto currency marketplace. It has an active community and a high volume. We should wait to see if it grows in popularity before deleting the article entirely. Sean Egan (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and Improve - Sources are not primary, notable, so there's no reason to delete. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and Improve This is a much needed topic and is made clear, the article just needs to be improved some more.--71.15.234.141 (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good amount of source coverage here. — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable; no reliable sources. I hate to not assume good faith, but all of these cryptocurrency articles with no reliable sources and bunches of editors arguing against deletion because "it is notable/it has a high market cap/it's new and different" makes me wonder whether people are promoting them in order to raise adoption rates (and hence, value) of these cryptocurrencies. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Litecoin, probably as a single section with a couple of refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google search I ran began promisingly, but the number of RSes that covered the subject with sufficient detail ended after the first hit: http://www.itbusinessnet.com/article/Feathercoin-%28FTC%29-Emerges-as-Arbitrage-Powerhouse-Within-Cryptocommodity-Marketplace-Claim-BitcoinIntel-Analysts-2971260 . The sources in one of the early responses discuss the subject, but only in passing. Other discussions are in relation to Bitcoin or other are not WP:RSes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and Improve Feathercoin is young thing, but exist and it has already history. That’s why the article should stay. If something wrong with sources then there can be discussion to improve article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.105.69 (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — 91.158.105.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

"Strong Keep" and "Keep Improving" as Feathercoin is a significant and unique crypto currency that is emerging. It has more of a history that many other new currencies due to its attack, active community, and increasing adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Travwil (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — Travwil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - Cryptocurrencies are virtual Internet creations of young age, so it's a bit problematic to have coverage for them in printed academic sources or alike. The article has been improved over time. Let it be continued. WSF (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and improve - to continue with an easy to understand description for all interested in this crypto currency Sradics (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - To plagiarize a former user's comment, the content of the article suffers from "unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The refs to reliable sources provided mention feathercoin in 1 sentence (or less). A search finds passing mentions, numerous forum posts, and promotional sites, but did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by a now-blocked user as possibly promotional." Josh3580_talk/hist 05:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - the notability of Feathercoin in the UK has been established beyond reasonable doubt. Kokot.kokotisko (talk) 12:25, 20 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 When Hikaru was on the Earth. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Hikuru was on the Earth[edit]

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

Wrong title. Hikuru should be Hikaru(光). Has been moved to the correct one (When Hikaru was on the Earth). H₂NCH₂COOH (Talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to When Hikaru was on the Earth, which itself is up for proposed deletion. If that page gets deleted, this one will be as well (as a redirect to a deleted page). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Speedy redirect: This is messy. Since the article was originally created by (I assume) someone familiar with the topic, and they misspelled the name, then this is a plausible search for the correct title. Therefore the redirect should be maintained (otherwise this would be a speedy WP:R3). However I also note that Hikaru has been PROD'd but that has not been resolved yet. We're not talking about the main article here but the redirect to the main article, therefore I say keep, and then it will be a technical deletion in a week or so if the main article fails. Ivanvector (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course I meant speedy redirect, not keep. It looks like the page was a redirect but nom stuck the AfD template on top of it, breaking the redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - wrong forum. Redirects should nominated for deletion at WP:RFD not AFD. This can't be speedy redirected since it already is a redirect. There really isn't any need to discuss the page at RFD at all unless the prod is removed from the target article, but regardless of if this discussion is reopened at RFD, it should be closed here. Calathan (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prod on the target article has now been removed, so someone should move this discussion to RFD. Calathan (talk) 15:26, 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. After disregarding the opinions that are based on such matters as market capitalization or technical merits, none of which are relevant under our inclusion guidelines, consensus is that this topic hasn't received sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources for us to be able to write an article about it. Sandstein 09:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yacoin[edit]

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

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

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

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

Subject appears non-notable: yet another Bitcoin fork, with no reliable sources to speak of. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only "sources" backing this coin are technical documentations released by the author. [citation needed] 02:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Could not find any reliable sources using Google, just forums, blogs and project sites. Not notable. Looks like yet another attempt at using Wikipedia to promote a pyramid scheme. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, my searches haven't turned up RS coverage either. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it actually is the first coin to use the scrypt algorithm correctly, c.f. the twitter of the scrypt creator at [[29]]78.52.81.125 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The twitter of the creator really isn't what WP policy considers a reliable source. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - electronic currency article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. A search did not turn up any significant RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is a unique altcoin that has had a market capitalisation in the millions of dollars (is tracked by coinmarketcap) though lately it has fallen a bit. Mathmo ^Talk 04:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some unique McMansions in my town that have a market value in the millions of dollars. Should they get an article too? Come on -- Y not? 15:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

≈Keep Yacoin is so young that no traditional academic sources have been able to review and publish information about it. Wikipedia's policies are self-destructive when they prevent the free publication of information because of something as archaic as publication cycles. Ditto for most other cryptocurrencies.Cypherious (talk) 06:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure AfD is the proper place to raise a dispute with Wikipedia's notability policy. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam article about non-notable software. InShaneee (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep delete arguments are not actual. The article have receved more refs which makes much above comments inaccurate. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - none of the sources provided thusfar are independent reliable sources.Dialectric (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately there has been no coverage for this coin that falls under Wikipedia's Reliable-Sources definition. However, based on that definition, it's terrible that it's much more likely a "joke" coin based on a meme meets that definition ^[1]. Thirtybird (talk) 15:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but Forbes isn't a reliable source? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A trivial mention in a reliable source is not enough to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, nice amount of refs for potential improvement, — Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google search above doesn't return any WP:RS that support notability of the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very low market cap. YubbaDoo (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Market cap is not a reason to decide anything on Wikipedia. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For my opinion it is. It just don't have a value at all on the cryptocurrency market. YubbaDoo (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool but you should read that little infobox about Wikipedia policies and guidelines at the top of the page. Smite-Meister (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Market cap is not the only reason for my deletion vote, e.g. it's not notable enough. YubbaDoo (talk) 23:44, 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 delete. This has had a whole month of being listed and relisted, and no argument has surfaced to refute the nominator and also, more recently, Lankiveil. Goneskies they are. Daniel (talk) 07:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Sports Network Cup[edit]

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

There are no references and The Sports Network did not have a cup during the years of 1993-2000. It is completely false information on the pages. The Sports Network also did not hold retroactive voting to determine past champions. SportsMaster (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because there are no references and The Sports Network did not have a cup during the years of 1994-2000. It is completely false information on the pages. The Sports Network also did not hold retroactive voting to determine past champions.:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do something but "keep" ain't it yeah, that's a new one for even me. It looks like the "Sports Network Cup" is the "trophy" awarded, and that could be notable for one article maybe. The series is likely notable but I think covered under the articles related to NCAA Division I Football Championship.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:33, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All, as they appear to be hoaxes. This source mentions "The Sports Network Cup, created in 2001", so it appears that the cup was not awarded before this date. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 27 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 role of a closing admin is to judge a discussion for consensus, based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments, ignoring any comments that offer nothing more than I don't like it or similarly They don't like it, with appropriate weights given to different comments with regards to the obvious meatpuppetry that has affected this discussion. As such, I am moved to discount comments from at least half of this discussion. At which point, I am left with about 2:1 comments in favour of keeping the articles, most of which citing sources published after the article was nominated for deletion as evidence of satisfying GNG. On this basis, without prejudice to any future proposal for possible merging, and noting the strongest possible objection to the personal attacks, off-site outing and harassment that has been directed at the nominator, the result is (sadly) keep. -- KTC (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dogecoin[edit]

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

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

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

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

Subject appears non-notable. Sources restricted to blogs. Note what may be meatpuppetry occuring on the talk page. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user, Atomicthumbs, who nominated this article for deletion is a known troll. A screenshot of his post is visible here. The actual post is on the SomethingAwful YOSPOS forum, a known computer trolling forum. The actual post is here which may not be visible without an account. I'm going to break down your own arguments and then attempt to refute them individually.

YOSPOS isn't a trolling forum, it's a computer forum. Are you for real? This has nothing to do with anything, either. If there's a valid reason for deleting or merging the article, it should be allowed to happen whether it was nominated by Jesus Christ or Pol Pot.ZigSaw 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Argument #1: "The subject appears non-notable".
  This is probably the strongest argument against the doge wikipedia article as of yet. But there are already articles written about in on large websites such as heavy.com and dailydot.com. Judging how notable a subject like this is can be hard, but let's assume for a second that the amount of hits on google can be some sort of assessment of how notable a term is. If you search for "dogecoin" you get 119.000 results. If you search for another cryptocurrency like "peercoin" which has a wikipedia article you get 164.000 results. That's not a very large difference. And Peercoin has been out since 12 August 2012, while dogecoin was released December 6th, 2013..
  - WP:HITS. A lot of people talking about a thing does not mean that a thing is notable. ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Sources restricted to blogs."
  This is not true.
  
  Coinmarketcap.com listed doge with a 3.5 million dollar market cap. Not sure why there is even a discussion on this articles deletion. Obviously this alt coin is bigger than 80% of the others on the market in way less time.

Maybe the moderator is just confused, or doesn't know enough about crypto currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.183.161 (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Moderator"? Coming unsigned from an IP address with no other edits, this seems like a troll comment. That aside: what is "coinmarketcap.com"? Some random website on the Internet (#wow #whoa) that everyone is supposed to take as gospel because of reasons? This is actually quite a bit less reliable than Buzzfeed. ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Heavy.com has this article about dogecoin: http://www.heavy.com/tech/2013/12/dogecoin-what-is-shibe-cryptocurrenc/

The wikipedia article about heavy.com label it as a broadband entertainment website founded in 1999 in New York City. Clearly not a blog. The Alexa rank for heavy.com is 2,882.

"Broadband entertainment"? Oh, it was founded in New York City, that definitely means it's not a blog. What? ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The daily dot has this article about dogecoin: http://www.dailydot.com/business/shibe-meme-dogecoin-currency/

The wikipedia article about The daily dot label it as "an online newspaper that covers internet topics. It aims to be the "hometown newspaper" of the internet.[1][2] It has a 25 member editorial staff.". Clearly not a blog. Alexa rank: 11,716

Digital trends has this article about dogecoin: http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/wow-dogecoin-bitcoin/

The wikipedia article about Digital Trends label it as a "high-tech lifestyle, technology news and information website that publishes news, reviews, guides, how-to articles, descriptive videos and podcasts about technology and consumer electronics products". Alexa rank: 1,842

Wholly irrelevant. If this is a metric of reliability, then I'll just post "Dogecoin is non-notable" on Facebook and cite it as a source (because I mean, just look at Facebook's Alexa rank!) ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Note what may be meatpuppetry occuring on the talk page"

This may or may not be true. Assuming this is true, perhaps a lockdown of the article is a better approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.62.142 (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa rank is irrelevant when determining whether a source is reliable. An article needs reliable sources to establish notability, and this article has none, likely because the subject is not notable. Heavy.com, The Daily Dot, and Digital Trends are not reliable news organizations. Please see WP:NEWSORG. Additionally, search engine hits should never be relied upon to prove notability (see WP:HITS). atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geek.com has written an article about dogecoin (http://www.geek.com/apps/the-best-invention-on-the-internet-dogecoin-a-more-viable-alternative-to-bitcoin-1579442/), which is a more reputable news source than the others listed. This source appears in Google News search results. 50.53.107.121 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geek.com's article says it's a weblog. Make of that what you will. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dogecoin was listed along with other cryptocurrencies in an article for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://triblive.com/business/brownebusiness/5224450-74/bitcoin-currency-gold#axzz2nVURDtM8 50.53.107.121 (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A mention in a list in a freelance columnist's column is not sufficient to establish significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot more coverage over this article by valid sources recently, just look into it, its certainly developing. kiaton (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Where? Link to them. "Trees can totally talk and jump over stuff and use firearms, there are millions of verifiable sources that confirm this, just look into it, it's developing." ZigSaw 22:02, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral per being the article creator, however most of the sources actually aren't blogs, or at least that's the last time I checked such sources like Geekosystem, The Daily Dot, and Digital Trends. There have been quite a lot of these coins being nominated for deletion due to various reasons, most of them being WP:NOTABLE cases, that it's seemed to blur the lines quite a bit. [citation needed] 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it real hard to be neutral when the nominator himself can't. The majority of the sources listed aren't blogs, and I'm starting to wonder if Atomicthumbs have some sort of agenda, since he's seem unwilling to improve the article and would rather have it deleted as quickly as possible. Explain your comments here and also here. [citation needed] 12:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is the nominator being "non-neutral"? By not spending a week dredging up nonexistent sources before nominating an article for deletion? Since when is nominating an article for deletion indicative of horrifying, spiteful, trollishtrollishTROLLISH bias against it? ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Atomicthumbs holds a sizeable holding in a competing currency... ! ;-) Mathmo ^Talk 14:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of bad faith and personal attacks don't make for useful deletion discussions. Keep it to policy. Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is only a few days old but the currency is exploding in popularity with multiple mainstream mentions: http://www.geekosystem.com/dogecoin/ http://www.geek.com/apps/the-best-invention-on-the-internet-dogecoin-a-more-viable-alternative-to-bitcoin-1579442/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/social-media/wow-dogecoin-bitcoin/ http://www.slashgear.com/dogecoin-digital-currency-takes-on-bitcoin-with-a-bit-of-meme-flair-11308557/ http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/wow-dogecoin-is-a-bitcoin-alternative-for-mutt-and-meme-lovers-1207251 http://www.dailydot.com/business/shibe-meme-dogecoin-currency/ In my opinion we're waaay past the point of debating if it is notable or not! Mathmo ^Talk 06:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a specific concept that requires significant coverage in a reliable source such as a news organization. Again, I don't think any of these qualify. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to ignore million dollar plus websites (yes, check out what they've been sold as) being run by a sizeable paid staff of writers? They're certainly significant. Mathmo ^Talk 14:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more about how the dollar value of a web site determines its reliability, its commitment to fact-checking, and its lack of bias? Snapchat was valued at $3 billion, so if I send you a picture of myself flipping off this article with a little speech bubble that says "totally non-notable!" will you reverse your opinion? ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we've got The Verge covering Dogecoin: http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/16/5216862/bitcoin-is-so-2013-dogecoin-is-new-crypto-currency-on-the-block The list of notable sources covering Dogecoin just keeps on growing! (which means this news will spread to many many more: http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/12/dogecoin-on-reddit) Mathmo ^Talk 20:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - many sources have been posted above. "I don't think any of these qualify" is not a reason to disregard them and delete the article. This is a clearly well known currency that has heavy coverage on many websites. --184.89.155.98 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that it doesn't matter 'how' many websites something has been covered on; if none of them are a reliable source (which has a well-defined definition on Wikipedia), the subject is not notable. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - it may prove transient and ephemeral but it’s too soon to tell. At one point, that was also true of Wikipedia. In the meantime, It’s hilarious; which seems a good argument to me. Tim Bray (talk) 08:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I'd wait a week before a final decision, as Dogecoin is still very new. If Dogecoin does become more mainstream, we can always recreate the article, right? Guineapigs (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Atomicthumbs is a Reddit user who just happens to not like DogeCoin and cryptocurrency in general, as you can see Here and here if he happens to remove his previous comments. Seeing as how this new information has come to light, I recommend the proposal be denied. The article stays. personal views do not give you the right to delete a wikipedia entry, I might dislike Hitler but it does not give me the right to delete Hitler's wikipedia page. 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.150.12 (talk)

- I'm amused Atomicthumbs supports dollars "because it is backed by the US government"! lol.... much amused. Mathmo ^Talk 14:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Great post, thank you for this. This is a really, really clear conflict of interest. Atomicthumbs is a moderator of /r/shibe (the meme that Dogecoin is based on) and clearly has a personal vendetta, going around reddit and doing things like linking to the Wikipedia page on Monopoly Money when Dogecoin is mentioned. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not sure that being a Reddit user counts as a "conflict of interest". Second, "has a conflict of interest" does not mean "is automatically wrong about everything". This line of argument is specious at best, and disingenuous at worst. ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the article on monopoly money because the person in question (who was probably not from the United States) seemed to be interpreting the phrase (when someone else used it) as talking about money with an economic monopoly.

Taking my comments elsewhere out of context does not help your case, and does not help the fact that the subject of this article is not notable according to Wikipedia's standards. I am following procedure here; I want to keep Wikipedia a good, high-quality place to learn about things. (How does my participation in a meme site represent a conflict of interest in regards to a cryptocurrency article, anyway? If that's a conflict of interest, wouldn't actually using the cryptocurrency in question be more of a conflict of interest?)

In any case, the purpose for the AfD process is for Wikipedia users to reach a consensus. If people agree that it should stay, it stays! (And if you can find any reliable source for the article, instead of taking your time to allege a conflict of interest where none exists, it would help the article a great deal.) atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the moderator of /r/shibe then that very clearly opens you up to a huge huge huge case of COI. And this whole AfD should be rethought. Mathmo ^Talk 14:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On top of the COI thanks to reddit comments, perhaps Atomicthumb would like to explain why up until July of 2012 he was a member of the "Wikipedians against notability", which openly states that deletions based on notability harm wikipedia? His argument here goes directly inverse to the morals of the groups he is a part of. This is straight up, pure and simple, a vote put up in bad faith to push an agenda. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GF Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What "agenda"? Can you explain what ancient conspiracy is being advanced by the deletion of this article? One one hand, the nominator's posts are in no way indicative of a "vendetta" beyond a wish to have an article deleted. On the other hand, they have nothing to do with the deletion anyway. Please stop trying to make the debate about random off-site drama. ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is definitely notable, as Dogecoin is the 4th most mined scrypt based currency and this rate is increasing quickly. The sources seem to be reliable to me. Can we have some explanation as to why the sources given above are not considered "reliable sources"? They appear to meet at least some of the Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.142.81.144 (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained on this page why the sources are not notable. In addition, the mining rate of the cryptocurrency does also not constitute notability, which has a specific definition on Wikipedia. If I created, say, Cosbycoin, a scrypt currency with a very low and unchanging difficulty and no limit on coins mined, and it rapidly rocketed to the top of the cryptocurrency mining rate charts, this would not make it notable. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You actually have not explained why the sources are not "reliable sources" per the Wikipedia definition. The argument is hinging on the reliability of those sources, not your opinion of the coin's notability. Please provide your rationale on why those sources are not reliable or drop your case to have the article deleted. All you've done is link the page about reliable sources, but you did not provide any reason whatsoever why the sources quoted here do not meet that definition. Proof by assertion is not a valid way to make your point. 50.142.81.144 (talk) 19:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've asserted they're not notable, that is a long way short of proving they're not notable. Especially when the majority of users here think otherwise about these multiple sources. Mathmo ^Talk 14:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one would mine such a coin, as there would be no money to be made. Also, the coin is just over a week old! fivexthethird (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that would not make it notable. But that isn't what is being asserted as notable here. It is the articles listed that you keep brushing aside as part of the COI you obviously have. As for Fivexthethird, Dogecoin is profitable and is actively mined by a large number of people. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Profitability != notability. There can be an article about weed, and there can be an article about growing things, and there can be an article about selling things and there can even be an article about growing weed and selling it. However, there is no article about the guy down the street who grows weed and there is no article about his weed-growing enterprise. Similarly, there are articles about cryptocurrency itself and the major cryptocurrencies, but Dogecoin does not necessarily deserve an article due to it being "profitable". ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clear conflict of interest, as per 72.241.150.12. Additionally, I am going to try to find better sources. fivexthethird (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, 0.00000070 BTC/DOGE and a 4375 BTC market cap means it's got the 19th higest market cap of all cryptocurrencies already. obvious keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:DC2E:2:B165:B049:AFC8:B38F (talk) 13:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that BTC exchange rates were a fundamental part of WP:GNG Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doge has grown from a proof of concept to an actual cryptocurrency in a matter of days. I see no reason why you should delete a page. I have seen hundreds of pages that seem more useless than this one, who chop one of them off. There is a whole community popping up around Dogecoin. http://dogepay.com/ - http://dogepool.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.196.152 (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should open deletion discussions for these bad articles. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above arguments. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Contrary to it's name this coin is just as legit as other cryptocurrencies and hence it deserves a page. Also the original poster displays an obvious conflict of interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.59.152 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let's forget the idea of the nominators conflict-of-interest for a moment, that (may be) a red herring. If the reliability of the sources is in question, someone should inquire about them at WP:RSN. They will be reviewed for reliability by third parties. This deletion discussion need not even be mentioned, so they could be totally impartial. If they are found to be reliable, Atomicthumbs' rationale for deletion will be demolished. Personally, I 1) own no dogecoins (or any other fake money), and never plan to, 2) was not asked to come here and am not a meatpuppet (thanks for poisoning the well though!) 68.81.104.224 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting together an RSN post now. Thank you for the suggestion! atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RSN post is here. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you might see some input on there from users who have an opinion about this deletion discussion, which might lead to a rehash of the same sort of back-and-forth seen on this AfD. Breadblade (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether these or any other currencies are "fake money" is surely a topic for debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.62.142 (talk) 16:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

many keep The coin's market cap is higher than that of many other altcoins we have articles for, and Doge has generated significant media coverage and incredible growth in the mere two weeks or so it's existed. — TORTOISE WRATH 16:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much keep, such wow I find it hard to support the nomination if the nominator isn't acting in good faith. KonveyorBelt 16:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GF Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's definitely more real than a lot of other crypto currencies I've come across. 198.72.165.96 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this will be as huge as Bitcoin. We may keep it. Rekakaka (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has gained the most popularity in the shortest time frame compared to any other cryptocurrency. There is no reason for this page to be deleted whatsoever. I think this coin will succeed. 20:23 15 December 2013

Keep It is the best coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.73.168 (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a rather popular alternative *coin, and rising in popularity very quickly. At least wait to see if the bubble bursts and it fades into obscurity, but as it is now it seems notable. 77.98.70.62 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be somewhat of a joke or a parody on cryptocurrencies, but it still is noteworthy. BureX (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further proof of COI: Atomicthumbs is a SomethingAwful forum member and is the one who tagged it for speedy deletion to get a rise out of people. This is a very, very clear bad faith proposal and is probably even just trolling. http://i.imgur.com/bh69HoH.png . Actual thread is here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3537995&userid=171134#post423196590 but requires a SA forum account to view. 184.89.155.98 (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where in that link does he claim that he is getting a rise out of anyone? Breadblade (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep it because it's an important part of the internet, this currency will be in our history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.116.221 (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD nominator has clear CoI. Has one of the highest market caps for an altcoin, and certainly it would be useful for people wondering what Dogecoin is to be able to read a serious article about it on Wikipedia, instead of a wow-interspersed joke article on some techblog. 108.45.75.50 (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except the only sources for the "serious article" are the "wow-interspersed joke articles"... ZigSaw

Speedy Keep Notability established above per many, many posts. It seems like there is a lot of users now sourcing claims and the article seems like it will assert its notability from now and going forward.

On the subject of the COI, nominator is in clear COI. /r/shibe is an SRS-affiliated subreddit, and SRS (radical feminist social-justice group, with a penchant towards marxism) has voiced strong opposition to cryptocurrencies in the past. There may be political ties that have not been seen until now. It is clear that the nominator was acting in bad faith in an attempt in inject his ideology, as SRS has attempted to do in the past. Whether AT is a member of SRS is to be seen, but there is, in my opinion, no doubt that he was not trying to delete this for the good of Wikipedia, but rather for personal reasons. Acebulf (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me more about how being maybe-sorta associated with "radical feminists" with a "penchant towards marxism" automatically invalidates someone's opinions regarding the notability of a cryptocurrency article. ZigSaw 22:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum [30][31] It seems like the nominator is a member of SRS, which explains his motives behind trying to censor the article. Acebulf (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could we leave the Reddit drama on Reddit please? This discussion is about whether the page meets Wikipedia's guidelines, the personal motives of individuals here aren't really relevant to that. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This cryptocurrency is still in its infancy, but it is gaining popularity fast. It has been reported on a few news outlets so far as stated by others, and will continue to grow. There is no need to delete this page - maybe in a few weeks if this just crashes, but at this rate, I doubt it. Furthermore, there's increasing evidence that the whole reason why this has been tagged for speedy deletion is from some member on the infamous "troll" forum SomethingAwful decided to push this through to rustle everybody. If you ask me, that's a direct violation of my Wikipedia Freedoms™ and I will not stand for it. If they are successful in the deletion of this page, I predict Wikipedia would lose much members and would eventually die with the Dogecoin page. 173.63.40.164 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: I've semi-protected this page due to the flood of single purpose accounts and IPs recruited from other sites. While I have no evidence to support the idea of sockpuppetry, this does seem to be a violation of our meatpuppetry guideline. Note that arguments not grounded in Wikipedia policy will be discarded by the closing administrator. See here for more details. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence you say? It seems they have a COI as well. Antonio López ^(talk) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As always, comments which are not grounded in the Wikipedia inclusion policy will not be considered. Prodego ^talk 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, we have two parties with different POVs and COIs that have turned this entire discussion into something completely different. [citation needed] 21:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain my conflict of interest. I am a moderator of a subreddit of dog memes; I joined for fun a few months ago, when someone wanted to close it down; I joined because I thought the memes were funny and the dogs were cute, and so I could post a banner I made at the top. The subreddit has no connection to Dogecoin. I don't see how this (or reposting comments on another forum) constitutes a conflict of interest. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thanks for showing me that 4chan thread, Citation Needed; I know where the weird phone calls are coming from now. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can thank Lopez for that. I had no idea people would be going so far as to release your personal information over an article, and I feel the need to apologize that this is happening to you. [citation needed] 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, hell, it's hardly your fault. Some people get way too worked up about silly things, and when they have too much time on their hands, they do this kinda stuff. It's funny, in a way. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ Weakest possible keep, or merge to Doge_(meme) Coverage of this coin has been limited to blogs and sites of limited reputability so far, this article might not pass WP:GNG. This content might be better merged to Doge_(meme), since it looks identical to existing coins besides the "Doge" branding. As an aside, I'm confused by the COI accusations of the nominator. The screenshot of his forum comment is hardly damning: in it, he talks about his deletion request getting overrun by meatpuppets. How is that evidence of trolling? I don't see what anyone stands to gain from this article getting deleted, but based on the meatpuppetry going on here I'd say the accusers might be projecting, especially if they have a monetary stake in Dogecoin. Breadblade (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The meatpuppetry, personal attacks, conspiracy theories and accusations of bad faith being thrown around on this AfD are simply embarrassing, but there is no longer a problem with sourcing. I still think there isn't much relevance to this coin beyond its connection to the meme, so a merge might be acceptable. Breadblade (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge A comedy cryptocurrency of little note other than it's connection with the Doge meme. The meatpuppetry on this page is also a disaster; any discussion that accuses wikipedia users of being "evil Marxists and feminists" belongs either in the 1950s or on 4chan. Not here. Fribbler (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're referring to my post. SRS is a social justice group who have not shied away from trying to censor Wikipedia in the past, if an article doesn't approve of their philosophies. That the group leans towards Marxism is actually relevant since they reject all cryptocurrencies due to that political leaning. Basically it comes down to the nominator is part of a group which has tried in the past to censor Wikipedia, and also are vehemently against cryptocurrencies. I believe it was relevant to the discussion. Acebulf (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's politics is irrelevant. They could be a grand wizard of the klu klux klan, the pope, or Karl Marx. It doesn't matter. I believe dogecoin isn't yet notable, and that's the basis of my vote. It may become notable, but for the moment it should be in the doge article. Keep the reddit politics out of the discussion. Fribbler (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much delete. No GNG. Such memes. Wow. bobrayner (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't like the way this discussion is headed. Voting delete just because some meatpuppets voted the other way doesn't a advance the discussion. In fact I would suggest that both the votes of the meatpuppets and the ones who voted solely on reaction from the meatpuppetry be stricken, and we can start fresh. KonveyorBelt 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Striking delete votes because canvassers got their hand caught in the cookie jar doesn't make much sense to me. Breadblade (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - literally days old, with very little (code-wise, usage-wise, or otherwise) to differentiate it from any number of other copy-and-paste forked cryptocurrencies. No reliable sources to speak of at this time. InShaneee (talk) 04:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much incorrect. Very reliable sources independent of such subject. Pilotbob (talk) 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough coverage from reliable sources. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] --Sloane (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such blogs. Much passing mention. Wow. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many article. Very not passing mention. Pilotbob (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, no reliable sources. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much incorrect. So notable. Very reliable sources independent of the subject. Pls read 5 pillars. Wow 01:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Delete - As per WP:GNG, only sources provided have been blogs that are not reliable sources. Not notable. RainbowDashite (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)— RainbowDashite (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm afraid you're completely mistaken. Every citation is taken from a reliable source, and none of these are personal blogs. — Richard BB 09:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Request userfication or submission into the Incubator~~ - the only reason people are voting delete all of a sudden is because the meatpuppets have poisoned the whole discussion. Everybody who is claiming these are all blogs are giving no evidence that they are blogs, nor are they giving any evidence that they are unreliable other than just claiming they are "unreliable". I don't think that this will be the last we'll see of the article if it's deleted, because I truly believe that the sources are reliable and more will follow in the future. [citation needed] 12:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you're right. I know that this was posted to 4chan's /pol/ board (which is how I discovered the discussion) a few days ago, but I suspect it goes beyond that. — Richard BB 12:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that the nominator does have a COI as suggested by the various meatpuppets showing forum posts, which should disqualify this discussion from being valid. I was neutral in all of this until that was all revealed. I'd rather it be renominated by somebody who doesn't have one, can provide AND explain for a more solid reason other than "didn't bother looking at sources, won't explain why because muh notability claims.". This whole discussion should've ended and have been reopened by a third-party individual the second the COI claims started to pour in, because it's a complete disregarding of WP:COL and WP:NPOV at the very least. [citation needed] 12:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. The presence of a COI is not one of the criteria for speedy closing an AfD. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is a forum post in which I repost speedy deletion contestation comments I find amusing, like "I oppose this article being deleted because IT'S REALLY MONEY YOU FUCKING IDIOT", a conflict of interest? atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I think we are all mature enough not to delude into cursing over a AfD nomination... [citation needed] 18:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, the reason people are so up in arms about the COI issue is because of the second issue being raised by Acebulf. You do happen to moderate a sub-reddit that has had affiliations with this "supposed feminist group". For the moment, I'm going to assume good faith that this is all just a coincidence and misunderstanding, but at the same time not entirely unsuspicious. It's obviously controversial, but this group has had similar dealings with processes on Wikipedia, making it perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of if you submitted this nomination in good-faith and waiting for a proper verdict, or if supposed political reasons are leading you to try and sway concensus towards your way.

For god's sake, I'm not cursing, I'm quoting verbatim from the talk page. What similar dealings has this "feminist group" have with Wikipedia, and how does this matter? atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow such heated. Doge support marxist feminist say pls no capitalism, such gender inequality, Pls gibbe class conciousness. Much traditions of all dead doges weigh like a nightmare on the brains of such living. Pls assume good faith -Pilotbob (talk) 01:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not accusing you of anything at all, simply because I doubt you are apart of this group, but the truth of the matter is that nobody knows for certain. Like Mark Arsten said, we shouldn't let COI issues dominate the discussion, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taken into consideration by the closing admin. [citation needed] 19:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just walked in looking for info on this coin.... Isn't that what Wikipedia's for? Mike Young (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you think it's for? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge. To say that it is unacceptable for someone to come to Wikipedia to acquire knowledge goes against everything an encyclopedia, and in particular Wikipedia, stands for and does. KonveyorBelt 17:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just any knowledge. WP:GNG. Smite-Meister (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - Too recent to decide. None of the sources are serious, reliable news organizations, but there does seem to be more coverage than for the average cryptocurrency. I would suggest moving the article to article incubator or merging with Doge_(meme). The COI accusations towards the nominator are plain nonsense (and immaterial to boot), it's almost as if the accusers haven't even bothered to read the policy. Smite-Meister (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much keep The references are definitely here to assert notability, even if my inner gut feeling tells me this isn't notable, the coverage it has received shows some. If not keep then a possible merge. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very keep It's got plentiful of sources to back it up and has plenty of notability to be kept. It is also getting more and more popular as an investment tool and asset diversification. Jørgen88 (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To early to decide. And WP:ACRONYM RadioYeti (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brand new source that we can use to show how people are using it as a means of exchange. http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/16/5216862/bitcoin-is-so-2013-dogecoin-is-new-crypto-currency-on-the-block [citation needed] 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have another source. They're popping up like flies now that the week started. http://www.complex.com/tech/2013/12/dogecoin-on-reddit [citation needed] 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I don't exactly know much about the second link or anything about Complex Tech. That just happened to pop-up when I was searching for more sources, so that should be more deeply investigated on. The first one on the other hand, is likely the biggest source to talk about the currency to-date. It's owned by Vox Media, which also owns and manages other major brands such as SB Nation. So far, it's looking a tiny bit more brighter for Dogecoin as far as Wikipedia is concerned. [citation needed] 22:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another source popped-up, except this one is in Spanish presumably. http://www.qore.com/noticias/12867/Dogecoin-podria-desplazar-a-Bitcoin [citation needed] 01:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with RadioYeti (talk), above. It is too early to tell yet whether or not this currency will succeed or fail. In addition, the originator of the delete tag has marked more than one crypto currency article for deletion (See Yacoin). We should also discuss this as well. Sean Egan (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much sources, so multiple languages - The floodgates are opening:

An Adrenaline.com.br (operated by Universo Online, Brazil's largest Internet provider): Wow, such profit: Depois da Bitcoin, surge a Dogecoin como nova "cripto-moeda"
An Adevărul article (Major Romanian news source): Dogecoin: o nouă criptomonedă a luat naştere pe Reddit şi Tumblr Wow, such profit: Depois da Bitcoin, surge a Dogecoin como nova "cripto-moeda"
Finally, we have a Russian source by Slon.ru (this one, I also don't know much about): Dogecoin: первая криптовалюта, основанная на меме [citation needed] 12:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was leaning towards delete when this started, but there is an article at The Verge and other reliable sources now. --Pmsyyz (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wired.com (the Italian version, but still) just released an article about the currency. That has been the seventh publication since this deletion nomination started, and likely the biggest one. There seems to be a trend with foreign sources coming out in addition to English ones, but I believe that these big-name sources of information are only hammering the nail on the coffin harder on whatever argument for deletion the nominator had. I also believe that even if the article somehow still got deleted, it would be recreated back very quickly just judging from how much has come in the last few days.

Here's the big one by Wired Italia: Dogecoin, la valuta digitale nata da un meme.
Another one by InvestorPlace, this one being English, also popped up in the same search. I don't know much about this one, so it's up for debate. Sick of Virtual Currency Bitcoin? Meet Dogecoin
One I forgot to mention earlier was this one by Vyralize, only because I got tired of looking at pictures of a cute, yellow Japanese dog making a funny facial expression. At this point, I'm starting to get tired of finding more reliable sources, and I'm having thoughts that I might be overdoing this a little too much that it would begin to disrupt actual discussion. If it seems like I'm doing that, I apologize, since that wasn't my intention. Goodbye Bitcoin, hello Dogecoin…wow [citation needed] 19:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. --Pichu0102 (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As talked about before by many other users, this currency is actually becoming more popular everyday and there is enough interest to keep the article among editors. This is definitely an article worth keeping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derstacker (talk • contribs) 00:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very keep: Wow. Such sources. Much notability. Very snowball (what's next? Is Doge itself going to get a page? Oh... god dang it!) ViperSnake151 Talk 01:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source update & comment - This little guy comes from an IP on the talk page who requested it be listed here. It's a Russian news source, so have your translators fired up again: http://hitech.newsru.com/article/17dec2013/dogecoin. I don't know much about a snowstorm (although it's more like sleet with meatballs mixed in.), but at this rate, I'm going to have quite a time trying to get all of these sources listed in the right places. I'd like to thank Jimmy Wales, the Georgia Bulldogs, and Barrack Obama for all the help.

Also, I've also noticed that Vice's Motherboard section made a report on Doge, but this one happens to be a blog (specifically, it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG), so I was originally hesitant to bring this one up. This one might need to be talked about at WP:RSN even though Vice usually does pretty well on technology-related subjects, but I'll go ahead and also leave it up here for people to debate. http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/dogecoin-brings-the-cryptocurrency-craze-to-its-logical-conclusion [citation needed] 02:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, source coverage showing there is improvement possibilities here. — Cirt (talk) 05:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, same rationale as Mike Young, and the sourcing is not unreliable or trivial. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 10:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly notable at the present time. The article can be merged later if Dogecoin doesn't last. But at the moment it's a notable current event. C. Scott Ananian (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources that help it meet WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business Insider just released an article. A snowy, merry Christmas seems to be in order for this Shiba Inu and his coin. DOGECOIN: How A Thing That Started As A Joke Became The Hottest Digital Currency In The World. [citation needed] 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Very merge to Cryptocurrency: Much Keep arguments are based upon the assumption of a future success; now, as this coin is not even a month old, such an assumption seems to be somewhat farfetched. There is also a clear lack of secondary sources that could provide some understanding of the subject beyond the obvious buzz and excitement: the launch of this "would-be currency" fails WP:EVENT. --Azurfrog (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can deny this or not, but most of these delete arguments only arose trying to cancel out the meatpuppetry by either blindly stating all the sources were blogs or arguing deletion only because "ewww memes, go back to 4chan, Reddit, etc". The only real arguments for deletion (let's use InShaneee and SagaciousPhil as an example) really don't strike with much force now because of the massive upsurge of brand-new sources listed above. Now, the Business Insider article and a couple of others could be used to help cite more of the technical explanations of the coin, it's founding and establishment by online communities such as 4chan and Reddit, OR even both. I agree, that this likely did not meet WP:GNG ONLY when this discussion started, but the influx of sources including a couple well-known ones have clearly fixed the issue to a large degree. At the very worst now, this discussion will end in a no concensus, or deletion followed by a speedy remake within a week, complete with all of these sources listed and then some.[citation needed] 19:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Azurfrog, have you created a tally of the two different sides? If not, then your opinion is useless and may bias other readers. Your argument for deletion is not based on any Wikipedia guidelines and as such does not weigh as heavily as those that do, such as the one that indicates that it meeds GNG above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  OK, I may have been a bit cryptic here: subject matter may (or may not) meet GNG, but I view it as falling into the category of "breaking news events", because it is so recent, and because the sources are largely vaporware (not to mention the focus on its being the first currency to be based upon an Internet meme). Now, assessing the creation of this currency as a (minor) "event" shows it fails WP:EVENT, most notably WP:INDEPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE. Most of the Keep "votes" seem to rely on the subject meeting GNG, regardless of the overwhelming buzz element (here again, WP:EVENT is more relevant, with such adequate points as WP:SENSATION or WP:ANTICIPATION).
  I am fully aware that a currency is NOT an event; but here, we are talking of a would-be currency just a few days old! so this article is more about the launch of a potential new currency than anything else, which IS an event (I would even say that is is an event badly in need of advertising to be successful ;-)...). --Azurfrog (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I came here as a result of the 'Business Insider' article. CGlassey 19:36 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep - notable, heres proof:

Remember, just because you feel it's not notable, doesn't mean it isn't. This feels not notable to me, but Wikipedia is not about editors making judgement calls based on intuition. Objectively this is notable, and that prevails over any subjective assessments Kyleshome (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot one source by the Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/internet-gold-doge-bitcoin-dogecoin/article/2541000?custom_click=rss. [citation needed] 22:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! added and tagged as added Kyleshome (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Such notable. Very coverage addressing topic. Much reliable independent sources. So ongoing coverage. Pls 5 pillars. Wow! #plsdontdeletethedoge Pilotbob (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep It's a worthless cryptocurrency that was created purely as a joke, but it has received vast amounts of coverage and it seems like that coverage isn't slowing yet. I'd be one of the first to vote delete normally, but it's just undeniable that this passes every notability guideline around. Tractor Tyres (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can we please just snow keep this? It's ridiculous how we're showing over 20,000 users per day a deletion template when they visit the article. Tractor Tyres (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, very snow, much balls. Pilotbob (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article view hits don't count as part of the argument that Dogecoin passes WP:GNG, even though Dogecoin really does meet the criteria anyway. Plus, because we have two large keep factions (one of those being an assload of meatpuppets), meaning that it's more likely this will end the natural way. Still, even without the meatpuppets, the article has a better chance than it did at the start of the discussion. [citation needed] 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my support vote and comment were seperate. I know that an articles views have nothing to do with notability (and could easily be forged) but if the subject is showing obvious notability we don't need to expose all those users to an ugly template. Tractor Tyres (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though Dogecoin may be based on a meme, that doesn't change the fact that it has been getting lots attention from news sites and internet users. Even though the article view count does not factor into the argument of keeping the article, you can see that Dogecoin is also very popular on other sites. On Reddit, for example, the Dogecoin tip bot is currently much more popular than the Bitcoin tip bot (http://www.reddit.com/user/bitcointip & http://www.reddit.com/user/dogetipbot). As seen in the news articles that others linked, dogecoin is in fact notable and a legitimate currency, and thus shouldn't be deleted. br100x ^(talk) 02:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Dogecoin has obviously gotten a lot of media attention but that alone does not guarantee lasting notability (WP:NOTNEWS). It appears it will be a fairly sizable cryptocurrency in the future. The marketcap is already approaching that of Feathercoin and Novacoin which currently have pages. I say keep for now. If in a month/ year the coin is dead and nobody is writing about it / paying attention to it, then relist it for deletion. [since I'm an inclusionist, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it being kept long term either way] Danski14^(talk) 06:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like it has been widely covered in reliable sources. I doubt the project will last, but that does not mean it is not notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such ADD. Many inclusionist. Wow. This probably shouldn't have been nominated for another week, by which point the majority of Wikipedia's more sanguine AfD contributors would be busy with their new Lego and bikes. The only notable thing about this subject is how meta it is, which is unsurprisingly why this AfD is such a train wreck given that our demographic regards Buzzfeed and Boing Boing as somewhat more essential to daily sustenance than oxygen. There is utterly no evidence of anything beyond routine coverage from specialist sources here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously calling everybody ADD because the majority of people have a conflicting opinion? Can you read WP:NPA? [citation needed] 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable now, multiple coverage in notable sources. BTW on the article stats, this page gets 20,000 visits a day, shows the level of public interest in this, and need to go to a reasonably reliable source to find out more. Robert Walker (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator known troll. Haseo9999 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quick google search reveals several business articles including business insider, International Business Times UK, Digital Trends, The Verge, DailyTech referencing this item in the last couple days. This article could provide neutral background info for people looking for more information. --Bigbadman (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. How many altcoin articles are necessary? Going to dustcoin.com alone will tell us the existence of Bitcoin, Litecoin, PPCoin, Namecoin, Worldcoin, Feathercoin, Dogecoin, Novacoin, Devcoin, Freicoin, Digitalcoin, Ixcoin, Terracoin, BBQcoin and Mincoin. How many of these have articles? Clearly, being an altcoin does not establish notability. So what ELSE do we have? We have BuzzFeed articles. Let's go to BuzzFeed and look up some other reliable sources of information. Let's read some of these neutral, unbiased articles written only about notable subjects suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, like "Harry Potter Emojis Are What Your Phone Needs Immediately", "21 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Smoke Weed On Christmas", "23 Signs You’re Obsessed With Taking Pictures", "14 TV Episode Descriptions That Are Shockingly Bad". Oh man. I bet there's a lot of fact-checking in "28 Everyday Decisions That College Students Are Terrible At Making". I'm going to cite that in my thesis. I'm not saying its inclusion is totally without merit, but it doesn't deserve its own separate article when almost no other marginal cryptocurrency does, and the only difference between it and them is the fact that it's regularly featured in "Wacky Internet Meme News" articles. Does anyone have any recollection of WP:DUST? Merge, wait a few weeks, see if anything new happens and any more sources emerge (they won't, because this is a fad). If they do, make a separate article. Otherwise, don't. ZigSaw 21:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that sources HAVE BEEN emerging after this discussion started. Names like Business Insider, Wired, The Verge, and The Washington Examiner to name a couple. I do agree with your comment regarding the other altcoins, because they are relying heavily on technical documentation by their own creators, forum posts, and links to their own websites as source material. Dogecoin is different, and not just because it's based on one of the big, bad evil internet memes that EVERY WIKIPEDIAN should be afraid of, but because it's outperforming in a time when Bitcoin and every other altcoin is shitting the bed because of China's opinion on the legal status of altcoins. That's stirring up a little thing called media attention, and it's the big factor raised by the nominator, which the majority of people here (not including the meatpuppets) are agreeing meets WP:GNG. [citation needed] 23:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a vaild argument for deletion. [citation needed] 19:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for now as per above argument. Notable enough for inclusion along with other altcoins, but not yet notable enough for its own article. If Dogecoin gains notability and reliable sources, I would favor it having its own article. Uberstadt (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment above yours. [citation needed] 23:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect anybody? -- John Reaves 22:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have hit the nail harder on the head if you could. A barnstar for you! [citation needed] 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the case if I were trying to suppress knowledge of Dogecoin. I think it's a funny thing, and am amused that it's the only cryptocurrency that came out ahead in this week's Bitcoin bubble burst, but when I nominated it for deletion, it didn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements as no reliable sources existed. atomicthumbs‽ (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who said you were trying to suppress knowledge? You were simply acting per policy at the time when this article likely didn't meet WP:GNG, which is hardly the case now. I'd rather you'd just withdraw the discussion and end all this nonsense for awhile until some other individual comes up with another reason, given the circumstances, but that's just me. [citation needed] 00:46, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to veer even further off topic, but I'm confused by this. Didn't you just say the streissand effect was a good analogy? Breadblade (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Atomic decided to nominate Dogecoin up for deletion because he thought it didn't meet notability guidelines. He ended up having a lopsided discussion with most people going keep or merge, and even pissed off 4chan's /g/ board to the point that they released his personal information (phone number, address, name, etc; all that has since been removed from what I can observe). That kinda seems to represent an unintended consequence according to the streissand effect. [citation needed] 01:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Late to the discussion, but looking at the subject itself without considering any of the accusations and possible COI going on, I think there's been significant enough coverage from the various reliable sources posted above. In response to claims that Dogecoin is a temporary fad or is bound to fail, whether or not Dogecoin ends up being successful is fairly irrelevant regarding its notability and significance. The present-day notability is enough to warrant recording here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although there are no novel developments in Dogecoin, in my opinion Dogecoin is notable as it is the first cryptocurrency to be based on a meme. If nothing else this is an interesting phenomenon. VinceSamios (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

very keep - wow. much cite. such notable. many independent coverage. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep really looks fine to me. What's the worst thing that will happen if the article is kept? Outside sources do exist, both relibale and not reliable. We don't live in the past; just because it supposedly was not notable at thew time of the AFD is not relevant I also suggest to the nominator that this nomination is withdrawn. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 21:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure masturbation. Wincent77 (talk) 22:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that relevant? Notability is the criteria; notable acts of masturbation are relevant and included on Wikipedia. --KRAPENHOEFFER! TALK 08:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion requests are WP:IDONTLIKEIT, the fact that the underlying meme is hated by so many people is not a reason to delete a page about a specific currency, currencies are WP:Notable Retardist (talk) 01:42, 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. Also, if a nominator is not sure whether an article subject is notable perhaps WP:BEFORE should be done prior to nomination (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Flinn[edit]

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

I am not sure whether this is a significant author. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 01:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable author. See information here. The book Beastly is the subject a motion picture Beastly (film), plus many reviews and awards. That's one her books, of many. -- GreenC 07:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Publishers Weekly profile[40], Multiple reviews in School Library Journal, Booklist, Kirkus, Publishers Weekly[41]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:15, 17 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. Mkdw ^talk 01:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Frishwasser[edit]

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

I tried to establish multiple reliable secondary sources for this artist to pass both GNG and WP:ARTIST. You can see my attempt here. I was unable (even with my connections from my professional & GLAM work) to confirm a collection of her work/archives at the Smithsonian Institution in any capacity. The Met has one small folder of ephemera, but, the curator in my struggles to find that significant enough to establish notability. Her work held in the Sun and Moon Press collection is just one folder in a collection of thousands of archival records. Again, I can't consider that notability.

I did find a few sources with really small event announcements from the 70's, but, I really couldn't find notable multiple secondary reliable sources. Even her website lacked information and sources.

I tried. Perhaps others have something they can discover. SarahStierch (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:03, 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, Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creator appears to be affiliated with the subject (it says "designed by philip downing" at the bottom). A well-meaning attempt by a webmaster that fails notability guidelines. Sai Weng (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article seems to over-egg the pudding, considering the two public collections do not contain her art, but folders of ephemeral information. Surprisingly her Biography doesn't make any claims to notability either. Sionk (talk) 19:01, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HSE Faculty of Sociology[edit]

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

Individual academic departments are not notable. Especially not a university department which boasts that 20% of its faculty have higher degrees from outside Russia and treats this as a sign of high quality, but offers no other indication of quality whatsoever. And, not surprisingly, there are no significant third party references.

Accepted by AfC; further evidence that we need to do something about AfC reviewing. DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What DGG says--actually, all of what he says. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails to meet the guidelines on when an individual department may be notable. The references are effective listings but not evidence of notability through 3rd party reliable sources (the text at the Eastern European University Association reference includes the word "our", indicating it is primary-sourced). The article text itself befits the prospectus material for potential students that one would expect on an institution's own website but not an encyclopaedia. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AllyD. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 21:06, 17 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cloverleaf Linux[edit]

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

Was a planned minor distro. No notability whatsoever. ilaiho (talk) 19:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ilaiho (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - linux distribution of unclear notability, lacking independent refs. Distribution apparently was discontinued before a release, so no potential for future notability.Dialectric (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find a page even on distrowatch, which would be the secondary source to start with for linux OS'es in my opinion. --The ChampionMan 1234 05:56, 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.