< 1 December	3 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. L Faraone 02:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Linas Klimavičius[edit]

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

While technically meeting WP:NSPORT, his only claim to notability under that guideline was a single appearance over five years ago which does not appear to have generated significant coverage. The article so clearly fails WP:GNG that, in my opinion, it falls under the part of WP:NSPORT that says that not all articles that meet its criteria must be kept. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything on the web, no publications, therefore fails GNG and as a minor league player fails WP:NFOOTBALL as well. Alex^{discussion ★} 23:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important than him technically passing WP:NFOOTBALL. Some WP:COMMONSENSE is needed here, and plenty of AFD precedent exists to say that barely passing NFOOTBALL is not enough when you fail GNG, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matheus Eccard, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Szabó (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metodija Stepanovski, amongst others. Giant Snowman 12:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While I agree with the principle, I find it hard to vote for deletion in this case given that we don't have a Lithuanian-speaker to confirm that the footballer in question hasn't received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredrik Hesselberg-Meyer (2nd nomination), after I searched for Norwegian sources and realized that there wasn't possible to find enough sources to make the subject pass GNG. In this case there are no-one that has actually searched for sources in Lithuanian, and in a lot of the other examples there are footballers that have played one match in a domestic league before fading into obscurity - this footballer was an expatriate footballer and played one match for one of the best team in one of Europe's 10 best leagues, but he has continued to play football in the top-flight in Lithuania after he returned home. I don't want to join a trend where we delete every short stubs about footballers that has played only one match and is from a country which we don't understand the language of, and then claim that it fails WP:GNG. For instance, what does this news-article tell us and does it leads us any closer to passing GNG? Mentoz86 (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – while I am sympathetic towards Mentoz86's point, I feel meeting GNG needs to be demonstrated. The "we don't know" status would, in my opinion, mean the article should be deleted, as it is not clear that there is sufficient notability, with no prejudice against future recreation if notability can be established further on down the line. C 679 17:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess openings named after animals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't seem to have a typical list purpose (WP:LISTPURP). What is the encyclopedic purpose of this article?
There is no connection between naming an opening after an animal and opening theory or chess in general (in other words, it's not actually a type or category of chess opening but an indiscriminate list of WP:TRIVIA).
Some openings have several names. For example, the Orangutan (1. b4) is only the Orangutan to some people; to others it's the Polish; and on Wikipedia the name of the article is Sokolsky Opening. It's an animal, a person, and a place! (List of chess openings named after places could probably also be AfD but with that one I can at least appreciate the geographic aspect of the history of the game).
- For this list, if a single source called an opening an animal-based name, it's included and cited regardless of whether it would even be WP:DUE to include that name in an article for the opening.
- I've seen Wikipedians offer their own OR on chess naming conventions relevant here, but no sources.
Having a WP page is not a prerequisite for inclusion on a list, but a staggering number of items aren't even red linked (presumably because they're so trivial). — Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The similar article about openings named after people is probably justified because the person usually either originated the opening or analyzed it or made it popular. The similar article about openings named after places is probably justified because that location figures in the origin or popularity of the opening. But, as far as I know, these animal names usually don't have anything to do with the opening. There are exceptions. The dragon version of the Sicilian is named that because Black's pawns sort of resemble a sea serpent. The hedgehog is named that because it is a hard-to-penetrate defense. But most of the animal names are probably not like that. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just seems like a random collection of trivia with no underlying theme, chess-related, historical or otherwise. Many of the openings are obscure, many are more commonly known by another name (isn't 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+ the Keres Defence?). MaxBrowne (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Keres Defense - "also known as the Kangaroo Defence or Franco-Indian Defense". Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway where I come from 1.e4 f6 2.d4 Kf7 is known as the "Vandalizer" ^{[citation needed]} MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tagged several dead links. No motivation to fix them, if anyone wants to try to save the article it's up to them. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR —Noiratsi (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am an experienced Wikipedian, and I have spent a great lot of time for this article. But if you consider, that after removal of this article Wikipedia will become better, go ahead, I do not mind. MrsHudson (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the outcome of this discussion does result in delete, you may want to userfy its contents to preserve the work that went into it (it's certainly possible sources will emerge talking about chess opening naming conventions in ways that support its notability). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possibility is to re-tool the list (after a few insertions and deletions) into a list of unorthodox chess openings. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is already Irregular chess opening. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 11:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Less than half of the names on the list experience any significant usage anyway. Cobblet (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. I'm not sure really why it was kept the first time, in 2009, although there seems not to have been a clear consensus. Well, consensus seems to have changed. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who played only one game in the NHL[edit]

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

What makes playing exactly one game a particularly notable achievement? Why isn't there List of players who played two games in the NHL? List of players who played 597 games in the NHL? Also, the article is too much in flux during the season, as people are always playing their first or second games throughout the course of the season. When I tagged this for notability, another editor noted that this was a relic of when single-gamers didn't get their own articles. Since each hockey player on this list has (or is entitled to) his own article, I see no purpose of this list. See also WP:TRIVIA. Most of the problem I have with this list is that people with two or more games aren't eligible, though they're clearly at least as notable as players who played only one game. p b p 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree this list should probably be deleted, the list isn't greatly in flux. New players are only added at the end of each season and the flux is limited to those who played their lone NHL game during the previous two seasons (currently 2011–12 and 2012–13). Rarely is a player who played three or more seasons ago removed - in fact, only two such players on the list (Thomas McCollum, 2010–11, and Riku Helenius, 2008–09) are currently under contract with an NHL team - and beyond four or five seasons the list is basically solidified. -- I suppose the difference between a list of one-gamers and a list of two-gamers is that there are two hockey websites that have a list of one-gamers - Hockeydb and the Hockey Hall of Fame. Neither explains the significance of being one-gamer and is just a list of names. Both lists have inaccuracies. One incorrectly lists Lester Patrick and the other is the only major hockey reference website to list a Bob Price as having played an NHL game. Also, both websites title them "one game wonders". Is this an official designation? -- Merging it with Cup of coffee, which is in the Ice hockey terminology category, and only listing the notable one-gamers such as Don Cherry and the four goal scorers might be an option. --72.25.51.187 (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So your oppose is that you don't like the list's subject? You don't like it because it doesn't list people with 2 or more games? That is a completely different topic and lists for anyone who has played any number of games in the NHL already exist. And you wonder why people think a lot of your nominations and rational are ridiculous. Being a single game player in the NHL is notable in its own right in a completely different way than being a player who has played 1+x number of games. Being a single game player in the NHL is something that is written about often. I can see reasons why someone might want to delete this list, but because it bothers you that 2 game players can't get on it is not one of them. That is like saying I don't like List of female tennis players because it doesn't include any men. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being a single-game player notable in a different way from playing two or more games? There is no source in the article that says it is, and there needs to be for it to pass our standards. Even if there was, there's still the hurdle of WP:TRIVIA to pass. If you played one NHL game, you are notable for playing in the NHL. If you played two or more NHL games, you are notable for playing in the NHL. There should either be lists for both of those topics, or lists for neither of them. And, no, it is nothing like female tennis players, because there are lists of male tennis players. Also, the "And you wonder why people think a lot of your nominations and rational are ridiculous" is completely uncalled for. Just because I think differently than you do doesn't mean I'm not entitled to create AfD nominations and move requests based on rationale I see fit. p b p 19:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Resolute mentions below, you misunderstand what WP:TRIVIA is about. Its about lists of "miscellaneous facts" in an article. It doesn't apply to list articles that have clearly defined criteria or it would cause every list article to be deleted. And there are lists for players who have played more than one game so it is exactly like the tennis player example. So yes your argument is a complete WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement. If you are going to make completely out there nominations then a duck can be called a duck. -DJSasso (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You should probably understand the guidelines you are using to frame your arguments, pbp. WP:TRIVIA does not apply as this is not a list of miscellaneous information. It is, in fact, a list with specific, defined and consistent criteria. Your definition of TRIVIA would necessitate the deletion of probably every list on Wikipedia. The rest of your argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Reso lute 20:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a perfectly valid LIST article. It is informative and useful in that it helps the reader to find navigate to articles of this particular interest. The subject of this list article also meets GNG as evidenced by significant and reliable independent sources. [1] [2] The fact that the nominator is unable to internally rationalize why there is a list of One Game Players, when there is not a list of Two Game Players is not a valid reason to delete. Dolovis (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Hockey and Hockey DB have tables on a great many things. Many of them don't deserve Wikipedia articles. This is one of them. p b p 18:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Reso lute 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your keep rationale is essentially ILIKEIT, though, Resolute. All your !vote does is bash my rationale, rather than actually giving a valid reason why playing one game and only one game is a stat worthy of a Wikipedia article p b p 18:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already shown that it is a stat worthy of note as it is noted by others, significantly by the Hockey Hall of Fame. Then again, I can't really fault you for trying to shift the burden of proof in a bid to save an AFD that presented no valid deletion rationale. Reso lute 20:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a fascination with people who get one brief taste of fame (see Lists of one-hit wonders for the musical equivalent) that's missing from those achieve a bit more (nobody mentions two-hit wonders). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That fascination flies in the face of our notability guidelines though. Our notability guidelines say that if a person who does something once is notable, a person who does something twice...is also notable. Therefore, we either need both one-hit and two-hit lists, or none at all p b p 15:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

False dichotomy, and a particularly desperate argument at that. But at least it represents a slightly greater effort than your "I know you are but what am I?" argument in response to my comments. Reso lute 17:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between disagreeing with my arguments and disparaging them, Resolute. To call my argument "desperate" is unnecessary. To call my argument a false dichotomy is inaccurate. p b p 17:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes "we must do x or we must do y" is a false dichotomy. We can also do neither. And your latest argument is as ridiculous as suggesting that List of NHL players with 50-goal seasons must be deleted because there is no List of NHL players with 51-goal seasons. Or that baseball shouldn't have the 300 win club article because there is no 299 win club article. Most statistical lists are arbitrary in some fashion, but in the end, we're just circling back to the fact that you simply don't like this one. Reso lute 21:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Halverson[edit]

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

WP:GNG failure. Not a notable fighter. Beerest 2 talk 20:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor fighter, fails WP:NSPORTS, and lacks of sources and web coverage, and therefore fails WP:VERIFY and GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 01:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two top tier fights, both losses and five years ago. Chance of making the notability cut are nil.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA. LiberatorLX (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by largest auto markets[edit]

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

List sourced only to a personal blog, with no other souces whatsoever, meaning no reliable sources for the content. And the blog does not state where the information comes from other than "all the usual sources", plus a note that some of the data is the blogowner's own estimations/guesses. In other words: a totally unencyclopaedic article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No real sources and unclear that it should be a stand-alone list in the first place. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please Delete. Good job Thomas! And don't forget to delete the List of countries by motor vehicle production, the List of countries by vehicles per capita and Automotive industry by country. Thanks for you great contribution! MarcosPassos (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is definitely notable considering our other automobile-related articles/lists, but again, it is not adequately referenced. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic of this article is a reasonable one to be covered in Wikipedia. But the sourcing for this list is inadequate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Batten[edit]

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

Clearly a vanity article written by either the subject or one of his friends. Fails WP:GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. I don't see any evidence of notability, and there's nothing on Google News. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The "websites" listed aren't references but simply three local articles the subject has written. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no specific claims of notability, pretty promotional; also these are no sources, so fails WP:Verifiability I couldn't find anything that includes Evan Batten as a main topic of a publication, that makes the article fail GNG too. Alex^{discussion ★} 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Special Police Dekaranger . Go for it! Merge away. Merge into Special Police Dekaranger and create a list. SarahStierch (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Space Criminals Alienizer[edit]

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

Does not meet notability or GNG for stand alone; detailed information on characters from Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Special Police Dekaranger to create a List of Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger characters article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Since Dekaranger is one of the first to have a monster index on its site, those sources can be added.Fractyl (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fractyl, those are still first-party sources so they do not prove that the list is notable on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:52, 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to create a List of Tokusou Sentai Dekaranger characters seconded. I don't think it's notable enough to keep as a separate page. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harbor Airlines[edit]

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

Can't find any information on this airline. Since it ran for nearly 30 years, and only ended in 2001, there must be something if it is a real airline. Almost everything I search for ends up as Harbour Air in Canada, a different airline. No sources, all supposition. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comment. This is nowhere near sufficient to demonstrate notability, but is this paywalled article about the correct company? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got enough here for me to be confident in flipping the button over to Keep; there's a lot of work to do, but that's not a deletion concern. Nicely unearthed, all. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found some information about this airline at Flight International: (1973), (1974), (1975), (1981). Note that it was founded already in 1971, known as "Oak Harbor Airlines" until 1974. Only thing is that I did not succeed in procuring later references, so that the claim that the airline existed until 2001 indeed seems dubious. When searching for more sources, be careful no to mix it up with Bar Harbor Airlines from Maine.--FoxyOrange (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I found a bit more. Harbor Airlines was involved into a fatal aviation accident on 26 December 1974 [3], so one could try and dig for some additional newspaper coverage. This source from the Aviation Safety Network is by the way the only one I could find that puts "2001" as the company's end date. Then, according to [4], they issued timetables at least until 1994. Furthermore, there is a 1998 timetable for a "Harbor Air" (not to be confused with Harbour Air, though). This still might be the same airline (at least the logos are similar); but in order to verify, more research would be needed. Also, it is claimed that the company once was named "Puget Sound Airlines." Now, again according to Flight International, this is not entirely correct [5]: "Puget Sound Airlines" was an alliance of commuter airlines at Seattle/Tacoma in the late 1960s (and at least in these sources there is no word if indeed Harbor Airlines was a member or rather, whether it already existed then at all).--FoxyOrange (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it odd that we're having such a hard time with this. The sources are starting to show something, but it's bizarre that that's all we can locate. From some of the sources I'm unsure even if they were actual an airline. One of the sources mentions they have a flight school and private hangers, this implies to me there were a small flight operation that probably did charters and the like. Though the ASN entry does mention Domestic Scheduled Passenger. I just find it odd that we can't come up with anything more. Canterbury Tail talk 13:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another comment (because earlier I did not succeed in accessing Squeamish Ossifrage's link): Indeed, it is about the wanted airline ("Founded in 1971 as Oak Harbor Airlines...", see above), and therefore this source can be used to prove that it still existed in 1999.--FoxyOrange (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although FoxyOrange has found some mentions to prove the airline existed, all (including the Aviation Safety Network crash record) are database entries without significant in-depth coverage. We need more than just proving existence to meet the WP:GNG. YSSYguy (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear YSSYguy, you are right: My earlier "keep" comment can be considered premature. Rather, I should have made it clear that now, having proven the existence of the airline, it should be easier to find sufficient references so that WP:CORP is passed (especially in offline sources). In its current shape, this Wikipedia article should never have been created, but I see a healthy chance that it can be improved and rescued. After all, it's about a scheduled commuter airline, which (according to various precedents) tend to survive an AfD.

That being said, I did some further research. This Seattle Post-Intelligencer article ([6]) confirms that Harbor Air(lines) suspended operations in early May 2001. Further news articles about that period by the Whidbey News-Times can be found on the internet: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Unfortunately, these are missing a publication date: The "Jun 27, 2008" seems to be the date when the digitalized content was put online. But again, that's nothing that couldn't be fixed. Another source would be [11]; after all, these newspaper articles seem more like "substantial coverage" than Flightglobal's World Airline Directory (though for many airline stubs across Wikipedia, this is the main source). Even more information might be found when searching for items about a) A.J. Eisenberg Airport (a.k.a. Wes Lupien Airport), which was owned and operated by Harbor Airlines, or b) Richard Boehlke, it's later owner who seems to have been involved in some "organized crime stuff". Hey (thanks Canterbury Tail for your "flight school" remark), Harbor Airlines might even be remotely involved in the September 11 attacks (though to be fair, this statement is true for nearly everything): Boehlke was a business partner of Rudi Dekker. Concerning your other "why is it so hard to find sources" comment: That's because it's a small company that largely existed prior to the internet age; and offline stuff is harder to get.--FoxyOrange (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some more articles, besides Whidbey Daily News articles linked above. There are enough longer articles to establish notability, and I also saw a number of short notices tracking the changes in location and services of the airline over the years. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per work of Bratland and FoxyOrange. Article needs complete re-write, who's volunteering? 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I now agree it's a keeper as well, now we've found some sources and actual information. It does need some reworking. We can flag it over at WP:Airline as well. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I've just rewritten the article, further input would be greatly appreciated (references currently not used are located at the talk page).--FoxyOrange (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FoxyOrange and Dennis above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Andalite terminology[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Animorphs through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how this passes WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. These kinds of glossary articles may be useful or interesting to fans, but they do not have the notability necessary for independent articles. They are better suited to fan sites or Wikia, where detailed trivia such as this can be explored without worry about sources or notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like WP:OR. Fails WP:N. Pburka (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- part of a large walled garden of Animorphs cruft. Like most of these articles, this one lacks sources and is filled with WP:OR. Reyk _YO! 21:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:AUTHOR, especially Green Cardamom's links. Deletion is not a fix for WP:COI. The genesis of an article (outside of copyright violations) is generally not a reason for deletion. Sancho 08:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Susan RoAne[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Now that it has been effectively confirmed that the author of this page was paid to create it, I am going to once again nom for deletion. As I stated in the previous AfD, I think that the article is still fairly promotional (not least because of the second para of background) and the author/speaker is not notable. It is important to note that these are not research books, but mass market ones (hence the library figures noted in the previous AfD are not, in my opinion, high enough to give automatic notability). I will notify all who voted at the previous AfD, and recommend that any new commenters also read the old AfD. This is how the article looked when this AfD was proposed. Benboy00 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only plausible reason to keep found in the first AfD was library holdings. However, self-improvement books are a dime-a-dozen and this one does not sand out from the pack, even from its library holdings, as suggested by a participant in the previous AfD. There are insufficient full-length reviews devoted to the books or the author to pass WP:Author, only some passing mentions. Incidentally, the photo in the article does not resemble the photos in some of the publicity material sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- I thank the nominator for informing everyone who participated in the last discussion, even those of us with conflicting opinions, but I don't feel that the COI editing is sufficient of a revelation to change my views from just two months ago (I think that even for a no consensus two months is too short of a time between AfDs). The library holdings are extremely strong (approximately 2,500 copies for one book and about 1,000 for the other if I recall correctly) regardless of academic or non-academic books. The reviews give reliable sources on which to edit the article and seem sufficiently notable to pass GNG. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 06:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR #3 multiple book reviews. Sources below are from commercial databases and can be verified through WP:REX. This is not a complete list of sources but seemed enough. More available on request (ProQuest has many more yet to be listed).

Per WP:GNG significant coverage in multiple reliable sources:

"6 Secrets to Successful Schmoozing", New Haven Register (April 11 2010). Abstract: Information about Susan RoAne's book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
"Let's talk about networking: a conversation with best-selling author Susan RoAne and student lawyer contributing editor Donna Gerson." Student Lawyer Oct. 2003: 26+. (Database: Academic OneFile)
Steven N. Czetli. "NETWORKING EVENTS IDEAL PLACE TO MARKET YOURSELF", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (PA) (March 13 2003). Abstract: Review of speech by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Carrie Stetler. "How to succeed in business: Make some small talk - One on one". Star-Ledger. (February 4 2001). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
Barbara Hoffman. "SCHMOOZE OR LOSE; THE MAVEN OF MINGLING WRITES HOW TO NIX SHYNESS AND 'WORK A ROOM'". New York Post (NY) (February 15, 2001). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
Deirdre Donahue. "'Work a Room' with charm, wit". USA Today (March 9 2001). Abstract: Review of audiobook version of How to Work a Room. (Database: NewsBank)
Janet Holman Parmer. "THE ART OF SCHMOOZING AUTHOR UNVEILS MINGLING SECRETS", Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, CA) (September 15, 1999). Abstract: Review of speech by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Terry McManus. "Author says networking anxieties can be overcome." Crain's Detroit Business. 10/19/98, Vol. 14 Issue 42, pE-11. Abstract: Offers tips on how to overcome anxieties about meeting new people and learning how to work a room. Importance of listening; Need to find a common thread to get things rolling in the right direction; Use of a seven-second self-introduction. (Database: EBSCO)
G. Patrick Pawling. "NETWORKING ALIVE AND WELL, AND HELPING TO SELL CARS", Press of Atlantic City(NJ) (November 15 1995). Abstract: Review of talk given by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Joyce Gabriel. "Career Women Must Avoid Being `Ladies'", Tulsa World (January 23 1994). Abstract: Review of book and advice by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Laurie Aucoin, "BEFORE YOU CAN NETWORK, YOU MUST MINGLE. LEARN HOW TO WORK ROOM", Knight-Ridder News Service. Carried in The Wichita Eagle (KS; December 6 1993), The Dallas Morning News (November 15 1993); The Charlotte Observer(NC; November 15, 1993); Tulsa World (December 26 1993. Abstract: Information about book How to Work a Room by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Milrose B. Basco. "Getting down to business at parties, San Diego Union-Tribune (January 11, 1993). Abstract: Information about book How to Work a Room by Susan RoAne. (Database: NewsBank)
Loraine O'Connell. "WOMEN ARE NETWORKING LEADERS" The Orlando Sentinel (August 12, 1992). Abstract: Susan RoAne, author of the 1988 guide to networking, How To Work a Room, ties the formalization of networking to the rise of the women's movement. (Database: NewsBank)
SHARON MOSLEY. "10 STEPS TO SAVVY SOCIALIZING". USA TODAY (July 5 1990). Abstract: Provides 10 step advice how to mingle at parties based on Susan RoAne's How to Work a Room. (Database: NewsBank)
"How to Work A Convention." Women in Business. Sep/Oct 90, Vol. 42 Issue 5, p7-7. Abstract: Features the book "How to Work a Room," by Susan RoAne. Tips offered by the book on how readers can meet association members and prospective clients at the 1990 ABWA National Convention in Dallas, Texas; Tips on social and business networking; Publisher information. (Database: EBSCO)
Debroah Fineblum Raub. "On a rain-drenched Saturday night about 100 people sat in rows of metal folding chairs and listened to author Susan RoAne talk. She'd come all the way from San Francisco to teach them the art of networking. And they loved her.", USA Today (December 13, 1988). Abstract: Reviews Susan RoAne's speech. (Database: NewsBank)
Craig Wilson. "How to work a party; An expert's advice for successful mingling; Stick out your hand and say `hi'" USA Today (November 7, 1988). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
SHIRLEY ARMBRUSTER. "'WORK THE CROWD', BUSINESSWOMEN TOLD". Fresno Bee (January 13 1988). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne, book and message. (Database: NewsBank)
Alice Kahn. "Networking Your Way To Obscurity", San Francisco Chronicle (December 3 1986). Abstract: Profile of Susan RoAne and message. (Database: NewsBank)

Per WP:AUTHOR multiple book reviews:

Bonnie A. Osif. "Communication". Library Leadership & Management. 2010, Vol. 24 Issue 1, p38-44. Abstract: The article reviews several books on human communication including "Voice of Authority" by Dianna Daniels Booher, "Face to Face" by Susan Roane, and "Managing Difficult Interactions" by the Harvard Business Press. (Database: EBSCO)
Publishers Weekly. 8/4/2008, Vol. 255 Issue 31, p54-54. Abstract: The article reviews the book "Face to Face: How to Reclaim the Personal Touch in a Digital World," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
"Be the Lucky One." Office Pro. April 2005, Vol. 65 Issue 3, p32-32. Abstract: Reviews the book "How to Create Your Own Luck: The 'You Never Know' Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
"HOW TO CREATE YOUR OWN LUCK: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity (Book)." Publishers Weekly. 8/23/2004, Vol. 251 Issue 34. Abstract: Reviews the book "How to Create Your Own Luck: The "You Never Know" Approach to Networking, Taking Chances, and Opening Yourself to Opportunity," by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
"ROANE'S RULES (Book)." Publishers Weekly. 5/5/2003, Vol. 250 Issue 18. Abstract: Reviews the non-fiction audiobook 'RoAne's Rules: How to Make the Right Impression,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
Loren G. Edelstein. "For the bookshelf." Meetings & Conventions. Nov97 Part 1 of 2, Vol. 32 Issue 12. Abstract: Reviews the books `What Do I Say Next?' by Susan RoAne and `Winning Communications Strategies,' by Jeffrey Kagan. (Database: EBSCO)
Mary Whaley. "Adult books: Nonfiction." Booklist. Aug97, Vol. 93 Issue 22. Abstract: Reviews the book, `What Do I Say Next?: Talking Your Way to Business and Social Success,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
Mark Guyer. "Audio reviews". Library Journal. 8/1/1995, Vol. 120 Issue 13, p135. Abstract: Reviews the sound recording `The Secrets of Savvy Networking,' by Susan RoAne. (Database: EBSCO)
Judy Quinn. "Book reviews: Social sciences." Library Journal. 4/1/1993, Vol. 118 Issue 6. Abstract: Reviews the book `The Secrets of Savvy Networking: How To Make the Best Connections--for Business and Personal Success,' by Susan Roane. (Database: EBSCO)
Debbie Gumulauski. "How to Work a Room." Library Journal. 9/15/1991, Vol. 116 Issue 15. Abstract: Reviews the audiobook "How to Work a Room," by Susan RoAne.(Database: EBSCO)
David Brooks. "How-To Books for Sharks and Dogs". Wall Street Journal (November 8 1988). Abstract: Book reviews of Susan RoAne's "How to Work a Room: A Guide to Successfully Managing the Mingling" and Job Michael Evans's "The Evans Guide for Civilized City Canines" (Database: ProQuest)

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I can get at of these seem to be passing mentions and do not contain the multiple independent periodical articles or reviews required by WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I've re-arranged the sources so it is clear which are applicable to WP:AUTHOR and which to WP:GNG. If you're going to disparage a source, please identify which one(s). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Green Cardamom's sources look to be very useful but I neither have the time nor facilities to evaluate them at the moment. If they hadn't been posted here, I'd be !voting delete again, on the basis of the article being essentially unimproved (in terms of references) since the 2 months since the first nomination. -- Trevj (talk) 12:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had !voted weak keep last time, but it seems the closer one looks, the more one finds that almost everything associated with this case is tinged with WP:PROMOTION, for example most of the references in the article are PR firm blogs, adverts for talks, or trivial mentions. Cardamom has again done enormous legwork, but lots of these sources seem to be the subject promoting her book(s). Publisher's Weekly comes up periodically to support notability arguments on the basis of book reviews, but that is a trade publication which reviews probably around 10K books per year, so these reviews are strictly routine. In these cases, it's difficult to cut through the promotional chaff to get to the objective information. Book holdings are objective, but again RoAne's are not very spectacular, considering she writes in the "self help" genre, perhaps the most popular sector in mass market books. RoAne may be notable, but we can't really have a reasonable debate with the current article and its history – maybe best to start over. Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for confirming you did not verify the sources I listed above. Knowing how contentious this AfD has been, I was careful about choosing sources and read every one. They are reliable, written by journalists, editorial control, significant coverage (almost every one is devoted to RoAne). They are not: advertisements, press releases, announcements or other types of event or product promotion, or full-length interviews (some contain extended quotes). If wish to contest, suggest reading the articles and list which ones you disagree with. Also, you voted Delete, but then recommended TNT ("start over"), these are conflicting. TNT requires Keep, can't TNT a non-existent article :) -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or we could just delete, and then wait to see if someone who isn't being paid to do it creates an article on the person. As I understand it, this is the normal and preferred route. Also, where does TNT say it requires a keep vote? Benboy00 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "normal" to delete notable articles on COI grounds. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I am not proposing deletion simply because of COI. I was just providing one possible course of action to help determine notability. Benboy00 (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT not only doesn't require a Keep vote, it specifically reflects deletion. "With articles, this is the TNT tipping point argument: if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. If you keep the article, then you're keeping something of no value until someone replaces it with something of value, when people tend to be more inclined to fill red links."--Nat Gertler (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting content is not the same as deleting an article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read both sentences I quoted? (The "red links" it refers to is what Wikipedia displays when a Wikilink points to an article that does not exist; in context, a deleted article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TNT is an essay not a guideline or rule. My understanding of TNT was that it retained the article history, but since it appears whoever wrote that essay wanted it to mean also delete article history as well, I will no longer be quoting TNT in AfD since it implies a Delete vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my point is that a lot of these are promotional: They don't really say much if anything about RoAne. Rather, they are RoAne on RoAne and her work. The Sentinel article for example, is basically quotes with mention of her book. I don't think anyone is questioning that it was written by a "journalist". The problem is that these may not really be independent of RoAne. She is in the promotion business. Perhaps some of these were arranged, which happens frequently (as it evidently did with the very article we are debating) The bottom line is that the egregiousness of WP:PROMOTION make it very difficult for a disinterested party to give an objective assessment. TNT is procedural either way...no need to "keep" for that. Agricola44 (talk) 23:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Actually she is in the self-help business, she write self-help books on how to network and be socially outgoing, her main target audience is women, she is a feminist writer, sort of a boot camp coach to get women to be more assertive and independent. Perhaps more relevant to a slightly older generation than is participating here. As for the Sentinel article, that's an acceptable article for determining notability. We would expect such a source to contain quotes from RoAne and her book. If it didn't, there would be complaints of trivial coverage. Can't have it both ways. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to quibble over the semantics of whether self-help-to-promote-yourself is being in the "promotion business". Let me be blunt: An article like the one in the Sentinel would be helpful under normal circumstances. However, the egregious WP:PROMOTION that we now know to exist in this particular case (including the paid-for article we are debating) raises real and serious doubts about whether these "interview"-type sources are, in fact, independent of RoAne. We now know that Ms. RoAne (or a party acting on her behalf) goes to great lengths for the purposes of promotion. Those articles may just be more instances of the same. It has "poisoned the well", essentially placing the burden of proof on those sources to somehow demonstrate an independence that we would automatically accept under regular circumstances. You and I typically have long threads of argumentation that usually end with me retiring from the debate. I'm going to try to do that now. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Might suggest your zeal against paid editors is clouding judgement of the sources. People hire paid editors for all sorts of reasons, not all bad reasons, nor is it against the rules, in particular when someone has extensive media coverage over 25 years as a popular author and speaker. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All kinds of reasons, not all bad – agree! – but not in this case. Please see my comments below on what's at stake for Ms. RoAne and her $10,000-per-appearance speaking business. Might I suggest that we not allow WP to function as a shill for this person, in violation of WP:PROMOTION? I repeat that what it comes down to is this: can you demonstrate that these sources are independent of Ms. RoAne? It seems the answer is no. Agricola44 (talk) 13:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

PROMOTION is a content rule not topic level. Articles can exist if they are notable, period. That you might believe the article's existence is promotion is a personal bias. Marketing people who charge 10,000 for speaking engagements can be notable. We don't throw out a 25-year career of persistent and wide media coverage just because she is a marketing person. You provided no evidence that these sources are unreliable other than the fact that she is a marketing person. We don't bias against people based on what they do for a living. Please stop attacking this person based on her career choice - there's nothing "insidious" about being a marketing person or charging for speaking engagements. The sources are reliable, persistent over a 25-year career, significant coverage, in a wide diversity of outlets. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You provide no evidence that the sources are independent and I think the circumstances put the burden of proof there. We're at an impasse. Best! Agricola44 (talk) 18:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Given the mainstream status of these sources (USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Publishers Weekly etc) the burden is really on you to show they are unreliable. We use these sources throughout Wikipedia. We generally rely on these sources implicitly unless there is direct evidence otherwise. The only evidence you have provided is a personal dislike and distrust of marketing people. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's that she managed to get a paid promo article into WP under everyone's noses, including yours. These sorts of articles threaten the entire NPOV reputation of WP. You're just not seeing the larger picture in that. best, Agricola44 (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Things are not so bad, if anything Wikipedia has an equally greater problem of deleting notable content that shouldn't be deleted. When I see Speedied and AFC archives I cringe since parts of it are salvageable and notable. That's a big driver of paid editors, the over zelous deletions force people to get outside help. I understand what you're saying but I am not a paid editor and I think this topic is notable under our guidelines. The ends of punishing paid editors doesn't justify the means of deleting notable topics. In fact doing so creates unexpected consequences. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had argued for keep on the basis of library holdings despite the obviously promotional intent and nature of the article, but that it was paid editing turns the balance for me also. If there is to be an article on her, it would best be done by removing this and starting over. The meaning of library holding for self-help books varies with the field, but for how to get ahead or get started in business, there is currently a great demand for them. PW reviews are not routine, btw, they review about 5% of the total book production. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to vote on the sources per GNG and not who wrote the article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Having been produced by a paid editor is neither here nor there. The article does not sit as overtly promotional or a NPOV violation and this is a simple notability question. I don't opine much on authors and don't see any reason to do so here other than to note that this subject should be considered on its own merits and not based upon what anyone feels about paid editing — which is not a violation of our policy and guidelines. Carrite (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to disagree there. On a practical basis, we can categorize folks as clearly non-notable which would distract from the encyclopedia goals ("Brenda likes kittens"), the clearly notable where it would speak badly of our efforts if they weren't include ("He was the 37th president of the United States"), and a great mass in the middle who we could include but do not have to. We have some leeway. If we lean a bit toward deletion of promo articles by paid creators, we discourage their business and thus discourage them from continuing that business, which wastes other editors time as they strip away the promo and try to justify some usable article beneath. (Paid promo writers are more a problem than unpaid, because the unpaid will likely limit themselves to their own projects and products; paid will keep at it as long as they can find clients.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was trying to make above is that the insidious level of WP:PROMOTION here muddies the waters immensely. It's now very difficult to distinguish what could be genuine, independent-of-the-subject indicators of notability versus what is carefully-engineered puffery/promo/advert. Contrary to what's been asserted by Cardamom and Carrite, this is not like any other case. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Perhaps User:Benboy00 suggests the best way ahead for this (and other paid articles): delete, and if any person independent of the subject (and this AfD debate) finds the topic to be notable enough then let them recreate it. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

That's just making stuff up as you go. There is no policy-based reason for doing this, merely your opinion. There is no formal ban on paid editing. There is no informal ban on paid editing, as much as some Wikipedians wish there was. This is a straight up-or-down call based upon our General Notability Guideline and the Special Notability Guideline for authors. If people can't limit themselves to making the call on this basis, they should pack up their POV in a suitcase and move along. Carrite (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If "paid editing" is part of a larger promotional agenda – and there is very good information in this particular case that it is (selling books and increasing paid speaking engagements, the 2 businesses RoAne is in; Ms. RoAne's speaking fee minimum is $10,000, so there is ample motivation to game WP for material gain) – then there most certainly is "policy based" reason for doing this: WP:PROMOTION. Wikipedia is not a shill and it is our policy not to be used to promote a 10K-a-pop motivational speaking business. Agricola44 (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop using this AfD as a battleground to push anti paid-editing agendas. There is no policy against paid editing. PROMOTION is not a proxy rule for deleting paid editor articles. PROMOTION does not say notable articles should be deleted because of paid editors. It says "All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources". The existence of this article is not promotional any more than any other article on Wikipedia. Just because she is in marketing and charges 10,000 for speaking engagements is not a valid reason to delete a ~~best-selling~~ popular author and speaking with a 25 year career covered widely in the media. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but to argue "this article is not promotional any more than any other article on Wikipedia" is patent nonsense. If indeed this is a "paid-for" article, it is the very essence of promotion on WP. Compensated editors are supposed to act according to WP:NOPR. You and I are not going to change each other's minds, so please argue-on without me. My advice, once again, is to tear this down and let disinterested editors start it over, if they so deem. Allowing it to stay as-is is tantamount to allowing WP to shill for this person. Thanks Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]

My Keep vote is not to be a "shill for this person". My vote is based solely on the rules of notability and sourcing. Your vote should be rules-based too. WP:NOPR doesn't say paid articles should be deleted nor does it trump WP:NOTE and GNG. --Green Cardamom (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're using the Book-of-the-Month Club information from the article to refer to her as a "best-selling author", please realize that that's a pretty weak form of bestsellerdom. It's sales by a single retailer (for that matter, just one of many brands for that retailer) with a purposely limited selection, not an overview of general sales. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 26 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, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 17:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, about notability. By the usual standards of notability for authors, she's borderline notable. Multiple very widely held books from major publishers in the subject like Wiley, translations into multiple languages multiple reviews, some substantative In contrast, I am extremely reluctant to accept notability as a public speaker--this is a field where I consider even national level awards to be contaminated by PR, let alone the usual newspaper material. Fortunately, most public speakers have something to speak about, and we can look for notabity in that field. In her case, it's as a business networking expert. I'm not sure I would really accept it--her notability would be as a author who writes about that subject for the public, not as an expert in it. I am similarly very reluctant to accept notability as a consultant, but here again there's often some subject-based notability on the basis of which the individual is consulted.( I'm particularly reluctant with speakers and others who claim notability as life coaches and similar areas.)

Second, about COI. The unfiltered work of paid editors is unlikely to be acceptable here, though there are a few editors who have been successful in learning our requirements for sourcing and objectivity, as proven in the only way it can be proven, by their work here. But for any good-faith paid writer, there are several established ways of filtering the work: the editor can use talk space and ask for someone establshed to look at it; the editor can use AfC--and hope for a competent reviewer; some non-COI editort who understands how to do articles on the topic can take a hand in it. I've helped paid editors with notable topics in all three of these ways, and in each case I accept a ceertain degre of responsibility for the result (provided the COI editor doesn't come back and mess it up). If it is in my fields of competence and I don't want to take some degree of responsibility, I leave it for others or I try to get it deleted. And most of the time, deleted is the appropriate fate of such articles) . With volunteer editors also, many of them produce work that is only acceptable after revision, and the same methods of filtering apply. In this particular case, the principal contributors are Benboy, GreenCardamon , and NatGertler. Of the 3, it seems only GreenC is willing to defend the article at this point, ~~but I consider the editing of all 3 sufficient to remove the promotionalism.. This is all that's required.~~ On balance, this leaves it dubious It's true the ed. here was an undeclared paid ed., but this is still permitted by the current rules. Even tho I would require paid editors and others with COI to declare themselves, even this is not necessarily always reason for deletion if others have taken responsibility. (I cannot check from here if she is the sock of a previously banned editor, but even so we have sometimes in rare cases accepted the articles if responsible people have been willing to work on them.) 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

modified; looking at the whole thing again, my original opinion is actually the one I still hold. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing me a bit because we have votes from both DGG and DGG (at NYPL), and according to the latter's user page, it is just a second account for the same user. Now usually, when I see two !votes from one user, I just cross out the first !vote... but usually, it's two !votes in the same direction. I doubt that this is intended to be incompetent sockpuppetry, but if we could DGG and/or DGG@NYPL could clarify their situation and comments, it would be appreciated. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems DGG has weighed-in twice with contradictory !votes. I agree with Nat: normally one is immediately struck, but I think in this case we should defer to DGG himself to reconcile matters. I'll put a polite reminder on his talk page. Agricola44 (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

adjusted-- thanks for spotting this. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If anyone was unconvinced before, I think it's pretty difficult to argue deletion on Wikipedia policy grounds after Green Cardamom's work above. I understand the bad taste recent events have left in our mouths concerning COI, but the fact is that alone just isn't a good enough reason for deletion. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed by the number of trivial mentions found. It just means that the subject has an industrious PR team. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

No evidence for that. Some of the sources aren't even positive. --Green Cardamom (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think it's helpful to trivialize paid promotion as just a "bad taste". This phenomenon is one the biggest foundational problems facing WP today because it undermines the very credibility of the entire project as an unbiased, objective knowledgebase. I think this is best illustrated by the fact that organized action is now being taken, for example (1) the Wikimedia Foundation is asking paid editors to cease and desist (widely covered in the media, e.g. in PC World and Guardian) and (2) paid accounts are being identified and permanently blocked, as is the case with ScoringGoals14 that created this article. Even if it is kept on this particular AfD, this article will continue to have problems because of its paid-for taint. The best solution is WP:NUKEANDPAVE, so that (presuming RoAne is indeed notable), a fresh untainted article can be created to replace this one. I hope the "keeps" here might reconsider in light this perspective. Thank you, Agricola44 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment While I haven't decided my ultimate position on this (it's "weak" either way), I will note that the promotional nature of the initial edits still has echoes in what's going on in the stripped-down version, per recent back-and-forth over whether such things as a one-sentence quote from the subject in Cosmo is vital enough to mention in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Agricola44: - the article is so small right now what will nukeandpave accomplish? Whoever recreates it will likely use many of the sources already cited there and by Green Cardamom here. Regardless of the amount of bad press has resulted -- regardless of how bad the problem is -- what part of the deletion procedure and AfD criteria says "if the article was previously the product of paid editing, delete no matter what?" --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Paid editing does not demonstrate non-notability. However, the article needs to be rewritten to a neutral version. Epicgenius (talk)18:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I and others here agree. The question is how to go about it. What do you think of simply starting over, whereby there would no longer be any association with the "pay" problem of the original article? Agricola44 (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I've edited the article and added reliable sources. Those sources need to be worked into the article at some point, but I don't believe there should be any concerns of neutrality at this point. If there are, please specify which words and/or sources are not neutral so they can be addressed. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just undid this edit, as it seems to mess up the article pretty badly. Adding them to the talk page sounds like a good idea, so that they can be incorporated as and when they are used in the text. At the moment, the article is pretty much a stub. If this person is considered slightly notable, then this seems like an appropriate length of article, although maybe the lead should be a few (one or two) lines longer. Benboy00 (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the five pillars, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. It is in the best interest of a credible encyclopedia to keep out advertising and promotion. To protect Wikipedia and uphold it's integrity we should put aside other considerations and delete spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had a large and contentious vote recently if paid editors should be allowed on Wikipedia. There were some passionate views expressed against paid editors, such as the one you express here, but no consensus was achieved. --Green Cardamom (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG, Duffbeerforme, and especially per Agricola44 who points out just how deep this web of promotion goes. When the best sources presented (by one paid to do so, no less!) are promotional and inadequate, it can safely be assumed that there is nothing out there to satisfy our notability guidelines. Stripped of its promotional sources, the article is nothing but a short stub about a nonnotable author. Them From Space 20:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The so called "deep web of promotion" is a dramatic fiction. No one has presented evidence that the sources are the result of PR. In fact, some of the book reviews are negative. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors should be aware of the symbiotic relationship between publicists and journalists. The former are paid to distribute press releases or other material to journalists with the object of promoting their employer's interests. The latter publish (sometimes even verbatim) the material to fill their journals' pages and earn their living. Thus the presence of a large number of trivial mentions of a matter may mean no more than that a large amount of money has been spent on public relations. This comprises a significant part of the material published in today's media. Wikipedia editors need to have the discernment to recognize such material when they find it. Green Cardamom's industry and zeal are beyond reproach, but what he has dug up is not precious metal but the fool's gold of the vapid effluvia of the public relations industry. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Some of the sources are so clearly independent they say negative/critical things about RoAne. I hate to go down this road of pulling up negatives about RoAne just to prove the sources have independence, we shouldn't have to do that, sources are not required to say critical things in order to be independent. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the sources are critical does not mean they are independent. PR hacks do not always get the response they desire to the blurb they issue. Have you heard the saying "The only bad publicity is no publicity". Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Style/layout errors? Benboy00 (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources will pass at WP:RSN (from outside neutral parties). Your claims are unfounded and unsupported. There is no evidence these sources are the result of "publicists" or "PR hacks". Stop trying to disparage a 25 year career as nothing more than the result of PR, you really have no idea what you are talking about and are just making stuff up. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The length of a person's career is irrelevant for Wikipedia's BLP policy. Wikipedia has a full and clear warning of the dangers of writing an article about oneself. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I question if it is appropriate to canvas at the list of content for rescue consideration before closure of an AfD? One Keep vote from an active member of the squadron arrived an hour after the canvas was made. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
AfD is the purpose of Article Rescue Squadron see Wikipedia:ARSSCOPE#Scope. Create an RfC or post at CANVAS if you must however this topic is likely old news and well covered in past discussions. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Read through the articles about her, such as the two referenced in the article right now, and she clearly passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is now an ongoing content dispute with the article. I tried to compromise and remove any trace of paid editing but also include the 30+ sources found above,[12] User:Dream Focus wants to be more inclusive of the original sources which has merit,[13] and User:Benboy00 (nominator) has reverted both to a very stripped down version with almost no text or sources.[14] Green Cardamom (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person trying to delete the article at AFD, should not blank a large portion of the article. Listing how many major newspapers and magazines publish a writer's work, is standard in articles for them. No possible reason to remove that or the information about her education. Dream Focus 03:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well this is getting a little peculiar. @Green Cardamom: how is this version of the article an acceptable "compromise"? 5% article, 20% a list of her work, 75% "additional references" and "book reviews." (??) Perhaps this is a more appropriate discussion to have on the article talk page, but I do have to sympathize with Benboy00 on this one, even though I'm in favor of keeping the article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 04:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I was trying to compromise with the deletionists who complained there was text in the article written by a paid editor, so I gutted the entire article to a 2-sentence stub, removed sources which deletionists had complained about, and added the 30+ reliable sources I found above which are significantly more in depth. The book reviews are of course important for keeping see WP:AUTHOR #3 they establish notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The book reviews establish notability, so link them here or on the talk page if not working them into the actual text of the article. It still has to be an encyclopedia article, after all. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the books get reviews, they are notable enough to have their own articles. Dream Focus 10:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question for those challenging the sources Green Cardamom listed: on what basis are you dismissing what appears to be a glut of references? Speculation about publicists' relationships to publishers or newspaper/magazine editors, being speculation, has no business being part of this discussion. If it's a reliable source it's a reliable source. Is there evidence? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 06:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article in its original form served not to inform, but to promote. The article in its current form serves not to inform, but merely to excuse its own existence. It is big sodding list of reference that are there merely to claim this person is notable and thus deserves an article. This does not make for a healthy article. It may arguably fit the rules of Wikipedia, but it does not serve the goals of Wikipedia. Subject may be of sufficient notability that she is an acceptable topic for a Wikipedia article, but she is not of such notability that her non-inclusion until someone is willing to write a proper article would be damaging to our efforts. WP:TNT --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is (supposedly) a topic level discussion about the mere existence of a topic. The state of the article shouldn't be that much of a factor as it's surmountable with editing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. References exist to prove the information in the article, and all of them are perfectly valid. Dream Focus 10:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Editors have been lading this article with every reference they could find, it seems, and it doesn't serve the article; it seems to be material only placed in there for making the AfD. Author articles in Wikipedia would not typically have a yard-long list of reviews. They would not typically include a citation for the subject having a one-sentence quotation on the Cosmo website or two local radio interviews (they might include the interviews in "external links" if the interview was illuminative). Sources are being pointed to not for information but to show that sources exist. It's basically having an article not on the subject, but on the reason the subject should have a Wikipedia page. That does not serve Wikipedia. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment concerning the article changes since the AfD began. As pointed out above, the nominator -- intentionally or not -- has made significant changes to the article post-nomination which weaken its case for keeping.
- This is the version of the article when the AfD began.
- Green Cardamom, in response, I think, to the discussion here, removed article text, extracting the references and copying them, with several others to "additional references" and "book reviews" at the bottom of the article (see [diff). While I understand his good faith reasons for doing so, I don't myself agree with the move. Neither, it seems, did Benboy00, who just deleted all of them without restoring the text (i.e. instead of reverting).
- Dream Focus then restored a version very similar to the article as it was when nominated. This was also reverted.
- The result is a version far inferior to what it was when nominated. I'm not saying anyone acted in bad faith, but it highlights the potential problems when nominators or others with a vested interest in an AfD make substantial and controversial changes to the article mid-process. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just revert the guy. If I keep reverting him it'll be seen as edit warring. Need someone else to revert him also. There is no possible justification for his content removal. Dream Focus 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that that would be a good starting place if someone wants to rebuild the article. From what I can tell, this is what Green Cardamom believes also. He also included a lot of unused sources, which I agree could be used in a rebuild, but should not be put on the actual article itself unless/until they are used, and should instead be kept on the talk page. I still believe that this person is non-notable, and should not have an article at all, but if I am wrong, the issue of paid editing is still apparently very important to a large number of those voting in this AfD. Many people seem to favour at least a rewrite, which this version is appropriate for. I'm sorry if editing during the AfD caused any significant confusion among voters, although I assumed that it was standard practice. If that isn't allowed, then it seems that Green Cardamom is also in the wrong (although I do not think he is). I shall put a link at the top of the AfD for anyone who wants to look at the article pre-changes. On the point about no possible justification, this is incorrect. There are several possible justifications, one of which is that the edit removes the material that is considered promotional by many in this AfD. You may not agree with this justification (I assume you dont), and that is fine, but say that no justification exists at all seems silly. Benboy00 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not escalate matters by inviting others to participate in edit warring. It will only invite the same behavior from the other side and make matters appreciably worse. Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      - If they believe the removal of content was wrong, they can hit UNDO same as I did. Dream Focus 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That it the very essence of edit warring. You seem to be inviting it and this will get you in trouble. Please take some friendly advice and do not pursue that line of action any further. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
        No, it isn't. If two editors are in dispute over something, a third needs to get involved. There has been no valid reason given for the removal of that information. As I said on the talk page, She is notable for being a writer, so mentioning what newspapers and magazines she has written for, is something that should be in the article. This is something commonly found in articles for writers, linking to what notable places they have written for. Dream Focus 18:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm afraid this demonstrates is the very phenomenon I described above: the "well is poisoned" for this article because of the underhanded way it was created, i.e. as a paid, but undisclosed advocacy piece whose purpose was to directly benefit the subject monetarily in terms of promoting her consulting business and increasing her lucrative fee-based public speaking appearances. This is very unsettling to most editors, who work for the benefit of WP and understand that such articles undermine the very credibility of the entire WP project as an unbiased, objective knowledgebase. If kept, the article will very likely continue to have the same problems as it is now experiencing. The only reasonable way around this is WP:NUKEANDPAVE. If the article is recreated properly, it will be free of taint. Agricola44 (talk) 17:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Is this a haunted well, where ghost will haunt us forever? What are you talking about? There is no possible reason to be hating the article, just because how it got started. And destroying it just to recreate it with the exact same information in it, makes no sense at all. Just wasting everyone's time there. Dream Focus 17:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for playing the "hate card". Can I expect the "Hitler card" in short order? Agricola44 (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Stop the drama and escalation will you please? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green Cardamom, can I ask, is that what you wanted when you did that edit that I removed the extra sources from ( i.e. you thought that the article should be rewritten, and you were providing sources that could be used as well as trimming the article down to unobjectionable content)? Or am I getting the wrong end of the stick? Benboy00 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but the discussion will be derailed very quickly by Ad hominem comments about hating and invitations to edit war such as are now coming from Dream Focus. I think it's important that we maintain some order and decorum and such responses are not helpful. I'm sorry I seem to be the "adult in the room" that has to point this out. Now, shall we get back to topic and discuss the article itself? Thanks! Agricola44 (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

You hate/dislike the article because of how it was created, and suggested wasting everyone's time by deleting it just to recreate it again without the "taint". There is no "hate card", nor did I encourage edit warring. Stop being so melodramatic. Dream Focus 18:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you think you were doing when you said "just revert the guy. If I keep reverting him it'll be seen as edit warring"? Please stop that. Thank you. Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

@Agricola44: - your argument about "taint," "tinge," and the spectre of wikipromotion still lacks merit in this deletion procedure. Relevant to Wikipedia and to the article? Absolutely -- and in fact this is far more effort than I ever thought I'd spend defending a former PR article -- but as you're using the arguments here amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Also that it's likely to be the target of paid editing in the future is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. So what of the reasons for deletion is it? Notability? Then specifically what notability criteria does it fail, taking into consideration the glut of sources that have appeared here? You based an earlier comment on the speculation that "The problem is that these may not really be independent of RoAne. She is in the promotion business." May not really be? What kind of system would we have if that kind of baseless doubt-casting determined outcomes of these discussions? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the first part of your point, I refer you to DGG's very convincing arguments above regarding notability, the sources, etc. As to your second point, I invite you to think about the financial motivations Ms. RoAne has for this article, the circumstances of how this article was created and who had the motivation to pay for it, and how this article might be perceived by readers at large as a conflict-of-interest and non-neutral and then ask yourself 2 questions; (1) Despite a list of references that verify Ms RoAne's existence, her books, etc., is it possible that the article itself is un-encyclopedic or is here for un-encyclopedic purposes? (2) Is it possible that this article and others like it might hurt the credibility of WP? I and some others here have legitimate concerns about these issues and feel their gravity far outweighs the importance of a single article on a borderline-notable individual (remember, I !voted weak keep on 1st AfD) and feel absurd accusations about "hating" the article and invitations to others to revert-in-kind are extremely unhelpful. This AfD has taken much time, so I'm retiring to the sidelines now. I hope the discussion can get back on track. Thanks so much, Agricola44 (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
To claim that Agricola44 is arguing WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is to, frankly, ignore what he (and apparently others) are saying, much of which addresses the question of whether this article has an appropriate encyclopediac nature. To insist that the argument for deletion be phrased in terms of WP:DEL-REASON is to ignore the actual text there, which makes clear that the reasons for deletion "are not limited to" the reasons listed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trevj#Q11 is relevant because it gives an opinion on this AfD. The fact that it was "at a fixed point in time" doesn't make it more or less valid than any other comment. Benboy00 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:BASIC. Per my comment of 12:11, 25 November 2013 above, I'm still not able to access and therefore evaluate those sources. If able to do so, I could decide whether to move from the delete view I put forward in the previous AfD. As it is, I can't - therefore my view is weakened rather than fully changed. It seems that perhaps we should have an article on one of the subject's most notable books (presumably How To Work a Room) and then redirect this title there. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 21:43, 11 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 International Union of History and Philosophy of Science. L Faraone 02:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Division of History of Science and Technology[edit]

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

No notability / significance of the organization has been explained ... Brownbarons (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into International Union of History and Philosophy of Science, the organization it is a mere division of (and whose article is itself barely hanging on). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as suggested by User:Rhododendrites. I did find one brief mention ([15], via Questia (subscription reqd)) - too brief to serve as a reference - covering the publication of papers from a conference, but that just emphasises that "International Union for History and Philosophy of Science" and "Division of History of Science and Technology" are considered in the same breath. AllyD (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into International Union of History and Philosophy of Science per Rhododendrites. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uv-mon[edit]

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

No significance in my opinion .... Brownbarons (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have to agree that it fails WP:N and appears that it has been found by a bot to have copyvio issues as well. Speedy delete perhaps? - Pmedema (talk) 19:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another EU Seventh Framework Programme project whose charter has been published here. The existence of a project is not evidence of notability in itself. In this case the project has concluded, without evidence of impact on the world around us. AllyD (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Will userfy upon request Mark Arsten (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motor stories[edit]

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

Significance ? Brownbarons (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copy right infringement is illegitimate due to the fact that the author of both the blog and the wikipedia page are the same RachelLee04 (talk) 16:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Dime novel. Fails GNG, one source given of questionable reliability and which this subject is only a small part of (seems to say primarily that this exists, not that it's significant). --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If kept, this looks like it'll have to be moved to Motor Stories as the name of a series. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userify so the editor can improve this away from main space. They have obviously been trying to create an article that meets WP policies, but they need some space to provide reliable sources. This might, however, be difficult. dime novels that didn't generate derivatives in other media are almost by definition non-notable. There isn't really room in the current Dime novels article for this depth of coverage on one series. An article on major series of dime novels that includes this series along with some others may be a good idea. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1 - no context. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delfcb[edit]

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

This article has been recreated after previous CSD, author and anon IP revert tags and Prod. Main AfD is for lack of any context. The listed players do not appear to be on any team/club together. Original author's talk page has requests to explain this article's context or reasoning for being made. If I were to guess context, this appears to be some sort of fantasy football club screen. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 15:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article appears to be some kind of fantasy.—FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NO idea what it is. I did ask the creator to at least let us know what the initials(?) stand for. Dlohcierekim 17:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Clearly a WP:CSD#A1. It has no context or purpose. - Pmedema (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as there's no context, nearly blank page with some table. Alex^{discussion ★} 00:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search and connecting the dots makes it likely this is a roster list for FC Barcelona ("del FCB - "The Football Club Barcelona"), which the editor's name of Barca -23- (talk · contribs) helped with. Any case, already covered by the club's Players heading in the article, this can be deleted as a test article or something meant for the user's sandbox; I'd also support a move to userspace for Barca -23- if anyone else feels that's appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 04:22, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Brar[edit]

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

Non-notable person without any secondary sources Dwpaul ^Talk 14:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved here from WP:BLPN)

Vipin Brar has not done anything substantial to be given space on wikipedia, he has no contribution for veterinary profession . I was part of this movement and know this person. The citation are not showing his involvement in any matter. Kindly review and delete his webpage. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder neal (talk • contribs) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only 2 of the 10 cited sources mention the subject of this article; one is the subject's own Web site, and the other claims to be a newspaper article but is a link to a privately hosted JPEG image, not the newspaper's site, and contains typographical errors that bring its authenticity into question. As a BLP, this article should be, at the very least, cleaned up to remove information about various events described but not demonstrably linked to the subject, and possibly deleted altogether. In the meantime, I have placed Template:BLP noticeboard on the article. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The editor who reviewed the original AfC of this article had reservations about many aspects of this article (discussed with the editor who created it here[16] and elsewhere on his Talk page) that seemingly remain unresolved (but it was created just the same). Dwpaul ^Talk 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only one of the references (that is not the subject's Web site) that actually mentions the subject of the article[17] appears to contain a falsification. It claims to be a reproduction of a page from the Hindustan Times. However, the email address "chdnewsdesk@gmail.com" appearing in the JPEG image does not appear on any HT articles. The site uses chdnewsdesk@hindustantimes.com in its bylines.[18] Dwpaul ^Talk 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 14:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the above concerns. Subject is non-notable, and article has the appearance of an autobiographical vanity page. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concur entirely with Sorbet. Compare with official website to see similarities, promotional content. One further vote to delete. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.179.92.36 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider Just have some time to look at the images of receiving awards from various cabinet ministers. Please take into consideration that there must be some contributions for all those awards. You can google all the ministers mentioned to make sure the identity. Please consider this. The subject do have notability. Coolvipcandy (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that none of the information in those images is verifiable. It seems to exist only in JPEG images hosted on a Web site controlled by the subject. No one disputes that people exist; what needs to be independently verifiable is that the events described actually occurred and that the subject actually played the role claimed in those events. There are currently no independently verifiable sources for notability as called for at WP:GNG. Dwpaul ^Talk 17:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also keep in mind that you and we may be defining "notability" differently. An individual can be liked, respected and even awarded by his or her community, peers and/or important officials and still not be notable for the purposes of a biographical article on Wikipedia. WP:GNG clearly defines notability as "[having] received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and further states that "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability". At this time neither criterion is met. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with these points, and note that even if an individual receives repeated coverage in a reliable source that is independent, some thought needs to be given to the nature of the independent source(s) cited. An individual may receive coverage daily for weeks in a local, independent newspaper, but not have sufficient significance to warrant an article in a global English language encyclopedia article. Myriads of award-winning students, teachers, professors, politicians, etc. receive comparable news coverage, but are not presented as WIkipedia article subjects. LeProf --50.179.92.36 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to seek clarification, that the contributor Coolvipcandy is not the subject of the article, or a member of family or otherwise closely associated, or an employee of the subject, etc.? LeProf --50.179.92.36 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the concern of the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. Since this article is proposed for deletion, the question of whether the editor has COI is moot. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coolvipcandy (I), am neither related nor employee of subject. The reason for scanned newspaper copies is that the newspapers of Punjab don't have archive of over 6 months. please check http://epaper.jagbani.com , http://newspaper.ajitjalandhar.com , these two are main newspapers in Punjab. Rest you can check images or send to expert to verify the content and graphic nature. There's no doubt that the notability of subject is local (Limited to Punjab state), and the article content can be translated to Punjabi. Coolvipcandy (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that also is moot. As mentioned above, only one of the cited sources that is not the subject's personal Web site even mention the subject. The content of the other "scanned" articles (JPEGs hosted on a Web site controlled by the subject) do nothing to establish the notability of the subject, since they do not even mention him. The photographs are pure "eye candy," since the context in which they were taken is unknown, and they do not establish notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers should not need to "check images or send to [an] expert to verify the content and graphic nature" to verify that information presented in Wikipedia articles, particularly biographical articles, is factual. See above concerning the need for "verifiable, objective evidence" to be provided (by the writer, not sought by the reader) to establish notability. Dwpaul ^Talk 04:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is determined by reliable sources, of which in this instance appear to none that can be verified. Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe photos are from the state functions which were organised by RVO association for thanking the ministers for the favor they did by agreeing with RVOs demands. The ministers distributed these in return as a token for thanks to all the vets who attended that party, almost 200 vets got it, not just a special person . Further, M.V.C.G., Gold Medalist A.B.C. (Vets Beyond Borders ) Australia)- is not some degree offered by any vet school. inder neal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Coolvipcandy" is himself Vipin Brar, this is his tweeter handle, https://twitter.com/Coolvipcandy. We should consider deleting him, as he was denying having relationship with Vipin Brar, how can his article be authenticated!. inder neal (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A different issue, and difficult to verify, but taken on face value is certainly troubling as it suggests that the editor has been less than honest in his dealings with us. Dwpaul ^Talk 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. The citations given fail to establish notability.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has quite clear appearance of an autobiographical vanity page, with issues in citations. - Ullhas (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One4Kids[edit]

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

Non-notable podcast lacking GHits and GNews of substance nor do references support notability. reddogsix (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a promotion. No secondary sources, fails WP:Verifiability. Alex^{discussion ★} 00:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per either or both of WP:SNOW and WP:G10 -- Y not? 17:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American fraudsters[edit]

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

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#List of Jewish American fraudsters. Previously CSD'd as G10 attack page. GregJackP Boomer! 14:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWell if it only consists of those for whom we have articles.? On the other hand, do we have other ethnic-based lists like this? Why would anyone go looking? Why not List of American Fraudsters. I find this distasteful, and telling me we have similar lists like it does not change that. Maybe we should include them in this AfD. Dlohcierekim 14:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No rationalle given for deletion. Similar pro-Jewish lists exist. Appears to be unalloyed bias. MelangePasty (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 14:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure editors from WP Judaism can be considered neutral. Why not inform WP Islam and WP Shinto? Surely WP Atheism would be the most neutral party? Or even WP Haberdashery? Surely everything except the input of WP Judaism is helpful here. MelangePasty (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MelangePasty: No, WP:JUDAISM members are the ones that are going to know the most about such a topic (about Jewish fraudsters). Epicgenius (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to explain the rationale for the deletion:

The page serves no purpose than the denigrate a religiously based group of people, as noted at ANI.

The list improperly implies a connection between the criminal's religious background and his crimes, as noted at ANI.

Appears to be intended as an anti-Jewish list, as noted at ANI.

With the exception of the NY Post, sources appear questionable. One source is a blog and unreliable. Two sources focus coverage solely on Jewish issues.

WP:BLP requires multiple sources for derogatory information.

Page is a WP:ATTACK page.

GregJackP Boomer! 15:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion. I perceive List of Jewish American fraudsters as an attack on Jews. Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As an attack page. The author's comments here leave little doubt for their motivation in writing this. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Attack or not, the intersection of fraudsters and Judaism is not a significant intersection to justify an article. Also, there's not really much sourcing, and no prose p b p 15:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK of Fraud#Notable fraudsters. Reso lute 15:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:SYNTH, attempting to create a religion-based connection that doesn't appear in any of the sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATTACK, and WP:POVFORK per Resolute. Yoninah (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:SYN per Alansohn. There's really nothing more you can say about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:OR and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 16:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC) Change my !vote to speedy delete - A10 - "Pages that disparage... their subject" - Mr X[reply]
Speedy delete either attack page or trolling, doesn't much matter which but there's no reason to let it sit 7 more days (see WP:SNOW. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I am sure there are other websites that would host this list, Wikipedia should not be one of them. Shearonink (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no significant value, and you can easily Google it. It does not belong on Wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established. No content worth merging: some aspects already noted within The Granville Hotel, Ramsgate. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 12:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Court[edit]

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

Building with no indication of WP:notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. The only remarkable thing about this building is its ordinariness.TheLongTone (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Granville Hotel, Ramsgate, which this seems an unnecessarily fork from, probably created naively. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest is worth saving from this article to merge into the hotel's article? It just reads like estate agent particulars. noq (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly, completely and absolutely non-notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums by namesake[edit]

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

Seems like a trivial mishmash of a common trait of album topics based only on the title of the albums. This list could become rather endless and doesn't serve a real function. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 10:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic trivia. For precedent: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs with the same name as song artists, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of albums with names identical to songs done by the performer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films which share their name with a title of a song, CfD Category:Albums named for colours, CfD Category:Songs named after other artists. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the topic isn't notable - imagine an article Albums by namesake, which would start something like "Many albums are named after things...". Album naming might be a notable concept, but this isn't --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 16:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:LISTPURP, as it's based on trivial coincidence (and at a very broad level, not too far down from "albums named after plural nouns"); it is not informative and not a standard, obvious, or useful way to index albums. postdlf (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Indiscriminate/trivia/lacks purpose. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If I go just by the numbers, there's 7 users who think this article should be kept and 9 (+nom) who think it should be deleted. Normally, this could be closed as "no consensus" without batting an eye. However, most delete !votes are strongly based in policy, while a number of keep !votes have less solid justifications; a number of them suggest to "keep until countdown ends", and it has ended, resulting in no additional notability (as opposed to a Fallout 4 announcement would have). I think this may be barely notable to be mentioned in an eventual article about Fallout 4, but policy-based consensus at the present time seems to assert it does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for stand-alone articles. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thesurvivor2299.com[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Thesurvivor2299.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Articles relies too heavily on speculation, original research and unreliable sources (Redditt). Per WP:CRYSTAL until something is confirmed as related to Fallout 4 (at which point a Fallout 4 article can be created with a few sentences covering it) there should not be an article on this. Яehevkor ✉ 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"and unreliable sources (Redditt)." - the references state more than reddit, and do point to reliable sources now. --121.216.81.129 (talk) 10:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Like the I.P. user said, there are currently no references that reference Redditt; any used before were only used for quoting users. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redditt was just an example, the article still has questionable sources. And Redditt users are just as unreliable as Redditt itself in terms of sourcing. Яehevkor ✉ 11:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides failing obvious WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OR, the site is basically a ~~WP:PROMO piece for (probably) FO4. Even if so, it should be merged to FO4 development in a couple of sentences. The current content is just fancruft at its max.~~ WP:HOAX. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such an obscure name doesn't warrant a redirect; any important information that is clearly notable can be mentioned in the Fallout series page. A lot of the information in the article seems a bit synthetic though. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 10:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hellknowz. It is a teaser site about to reveal something, probably Fallout 4, but that doesn't make the site in itself noteworthy. --Soetermans. T / C 12:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per everything cited by Hellknowz above. Sergecross73 msg me 13:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clear WP:CRYSTAL violation. Article speculates an apparent pending game announcement but we can't substantiate anything until after the fact. If, however, this pans out to be a Fallout 4 marketing strategy, it would be a very effective use of viral marketing which would be mentioned in the article. CR4ZE (t) 14:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - Of course, I want what is best for the encyclopedia. I completely understand the WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR issues stated above. There is a lot of speculation behind the site; an article probably should have been created once the site was concluded as legitimate (if not a hoax). I believe that we should wait until Bethesda/ZeniMax comments on it, as they have declined to comment on the site at the moment per their policies. Like what CR4ZE said, "... we can't substantiate anything until after the fact. If, however, this pans out to be a Fallout 4 marketing strategy, it would be a very effective use of viral marketing which would be mentioned in the article". Once again, I am undecided on a deletion until something can be confirmed. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The site is notable, please see the general notability guideline. Independent sources that are reliable (such as IGN) have significantly covered the subject, and will even more once the site's countdown is up. MrScorch6200 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What else besides IGN is reliable? Also, it's a stretch calling the IGN piece in-depth, it doesn't care about the specifics of the website, just that it's Fallout. The website itself fails WP:WEB, WP:NOT#INTERNET and basically WP:NOTINHERITED. And even if there were multiple GNG-suitable sources, it still belongs in the game's article in development/marketing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:00, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, it's a bit hard writing about something that we don't know much about at the moment. MrScorch6200 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then per item #1 of WP:CRYSTAL, you don't write about it. Only verifiable information should be added to Wikipedia articles, and we're not a news site so we can't have "as it happens" articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CR4ZE (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs a lot of work, but there are sufficient sources that prove it is notable. 1 and 2, to start with. A google search of "The Survivor 2299" shows many other news sources extensively covering it. 128.120.184.85 (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need is lasting notability, not a hyped news report about a game's promotional website. We do not report singular news events unless they receive tons of coverage. There have been many sites like this and none have been independently covered since their corresponding game was released. This is development/marketing material for the game's article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I Love Bees <- I'll just leave this here. 108.9.109.162 (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly -- an article that actually has "reception" and "legacy", not just a single event. A prime example of what this one doesn't have. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doesn't have Yet. Kaoskitteh (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which is the essence of WP:CRYSTAL -- we will create it with reliable sources if and when it is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already mentioned above. Any necessary information can be included in the Fallout 4 article. The1337gamer (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least until the countdown finishes. It may or may not be a Fallout 4 hoax. This info is a timeline of the changing website. this wiki article collects and maintains the lost info. Especially when game news sites don't report the small details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRIMGRIZZLY (talk • contribs)
- This wiki is not a webhost for preserving info for fans, there are plenty of free web hosts out there, including numerous Fallout wikis. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. After reading the entirety of the article, as well as a news post by PCGamer [19], I think that the page should remain as it is until more information is available. If the site is legitimate, then the ensuing web articles, reports, etcetera will easily pass the wikipedia notability requirements. If the site is not legitimate, there is still a chance that it will have enough of an impact on the gaming community to warrant keeping the page. Unless Bethesda or Zenimax state otherwise, or the site is otherwise confirmed as providing false information, the information provided in this article should be available until the "Countdown" ends. Wikipedia is here to inform, and this article is certainly informative. I learned everything I wanted to know about the website and more in this article, and confirmed that all information provided about the site was valid. If the countdown ends and it was all a hoax, and no ones gives it a second thought, then it will be fine to remove. Kaoskitteh (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not everything in the world deserves its own article, whether or not it might informative. We also can't have articles around in case they someday might contain more information. There are to options: 1) this article will be deleted in the very near future for these reasons or 2) the article will be merged into the article of Fallout 4 for these reasons. Just because a teaser site has had some attention (in the video game press that is) doesn't mean we should treat it like I Love Bees or Potato Sack. --Soetermans. T / C 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment This is an article about speculations, not an article making speculations. The article provides facts about a website that is experiencing an increasing amount of attention, and that's it. Everything about the site that is uncomfirmed is stated as being in such a state ("... a website supposedly acquired..." - "...It speculates a possible Fallout title release..." - " ..."The Survivor" may refer...") It makes little sense to remove the article before the topic has run its course and is concluded, especially when its conclusion is in such a short frame of time. I do agree that a merging with the Fallout page would be the wisest decision, but not until the ordeal is completed. 67.176.86.149 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I know that the article can be deleted on Monday, but don't you think we can hold off until Wednesday (end of countdown) to make a consensus? It seems only logical. I feel that on Wednesday we can make a better consensus then we could prior to Wednesday. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 01:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I definitely second this. 24.31.162.107 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Countdown is over. To those who do not believe in the wisdom behind WP:NOT: Serves you right. Fleet Command (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That 'Fallout 4 Teaser Website' Was A Hoax. Let me say that I'm not happy with this, I would've love to see a new entry in the Fallout series, but it goes to show that we can't have articles around based upon teasing. --Soetermans. T / C 10:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because the subject of an article is a hoax doesn't mean it should be deleted...see Nintendo On, which was also a viral hoax. As for this article, I'd say this is a ~~keeper~~ deletion-worthy article, based on below comments. 『Woona』_{Dear Celestia...} 11:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree with you, if the hoax had a huge effect. Video game websites were cautious to comment on the teaser site and now already the storm is over. I don't think this is notable. --Soetermans. T / C 11:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, being an article about a hoax isn't a reason alone to delete. Failing WP:GNG with no lasting notability and only routine news coverage by specialized sources, however, is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz Articles do not need lasting notability per WP:N#TEMP. There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says anything about an article needing lasting notability. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability is not temporary" = "Notability is lasting". Routine news coverage repeating the same vague rumor and then repeating the same discovered hoax is not significant coverage. To quote "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity". 10:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what "Notability is not temporary" means: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". Of course, you can argue that it is a short-term interest (which I now agree with). --MrScorch6200 (t c) 21:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already clarified -- when I said "lasting" it meant the same as "not temporary" plus implied in-depth that's not just hyped news a few years from now. I didn't say anything about it needing ongoing coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the Nintendo On article is a great example here. Its a mess, being tagged for notability and WP:OR for multiple years, and hasn't survived an WP:AFD. Probably doesn't help this article's case. Sergecross73 msg me 15:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plz stop invoking stupid essays, kthx. --Niemti (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essay or not, "Nintendo On" isn't a good example of anything except for being a sloppy mess. Sergecross73 msg me 18:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rewrite as the article describes this game as being possible, even though it was a hoax. A very notable hoax. [Soffredo]

04:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is a hoax, doesn't deserve a page Sevrandy (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hoaxes lol --Niemti (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with the series (to be later moved to F4), also an update just in: http://www.oxm.co.uk/67775/fallout-4-hoaxer-comes-clean-over-thesurvivor2299com-with-a-reddit-ama/ (lol death threats) http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-09-fallout-4-hoaxer-website-designed-to-troll-force-bethesdas-hand etc. An seriously you guys, don't hate on hoaxes for no reason whatsoever and welcome to Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Kick Mix[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. Paid advocacy ([20])? --みんな空の下 (トーク) 05:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - paid advocacy - WP:PROMO. Alex^{discussion ★} 00:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Trevj (talk • contribs) 02:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shachat[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Created by a paid advocacy account, see [21]. MER-C 04:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the article covers the features and aspirations but gives no indication of attained notability. Nor has any evidence been found: fails WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:19, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability established. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as A11. Fram (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boovabee[edit]

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

non-notable neologism, possibly made up by page author -- BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't help but feel there's some speedy criterion that could apply here. G3, perhaps? Needless to say, nothing remotely like a reliable source here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think there's a speedy for this but it can be snowballed under WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A DICTIONARY! - Pmedema (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thought it out and maybe could be speedied under WP:CSD#A11? - Pmedema (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought about that, but there's no indication in the article that it was invented by the author. --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - preferably snow delete, out of scope, high likely vandalism or made out, if not consider transferring to Wiktionary. Alex^{discussion ★} 01:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant topologies[edit]

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

No references in nearly seven years. Editorial with unencyclopedic tone. Material partially covered in Network topology and Mesh network. I don't see much value for readers. Ringbang (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced and vague. Hopeless. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. First I thought it might be a WP:COATRACK for something called VLAN Transport Protocol, since that is given as the "fix" for the "solution" (although as usual, nothing at all to do with solutions!). But it appears that the original article properly wikilinked to spanning tree protocol, which is where this article could be merged if it had any useful sourced content. But this edit by an unregistered user in July 2013 broke that link anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD#G6, often accomplished via Template:Db-move. No redirect needed, as inbound links have been corrected and the band is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 09:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furor Gallico[edit]

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

This is a disambiguation page, but there is no working link to an article in Wikipedia apart from a single article: Furor Gallico (band). This page may thus be unnecessary. Tco03displays (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move Furor Gallico (band) here, leaving a redirect. Siuenti (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Furor Gallico

Furor Galico page should not be deleted. It is utilized to distinguish the difference between the band and the album (the page is in progress at the moment)

comesidice (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 05:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olatunde olalekan[edit]

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

not notable scientist. have not been able to find sources. removed dead links that did not provide sourcing. de-prodded Dlohcierekim 02:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Article was speedily deleted under A7 twice today and recreated each time. The subject is clearly non notable and this probably could be speedily deleted under A7 again, but will just let the AfD run to completion instead. Safiel (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would prefer that we achieve consensus. Dlohcierekim 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with getting an AfD consensus; but for reference, variations on the subject have been deleted under multiple article names - some of which are now create protected. See:

Olatunde olalekan isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olatunde Olalekan Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olatunde O Isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Olatunde isaac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
related WP:UND discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 105#Olatunde O Isaac

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt this latest variation. A man with a job; no evidence on attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I checked the so-called references of the first instance of the article. None of the refs held. They either pointed to nonexisting webpages, to webpages not mentioning the subject, or unrelated Wikipedia articles. Moreover, the creator's sock (Ainakan (talk · contribs)) seems to have decided that Isaac Newton's first name should in fact be abreviated to "ol": [22]. That is the edit (—test, joke, hoax, vandalism?—) that put my attention to this article and that made me decide to carefully check the "references". - DVdm (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, salt this and properly capitalised title and block the creator. Blatant self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt After a better look at the entire situation, obviously speedy deletion, salting and blocking of the author is warranted. Striking my earlier comment. Safiel (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnotable professor-wannabe with big ego. jni (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I agree with Nyttend and Dlohcierekim; let this get obliterated in this deletion discussion. Strictly speaking this is not a speedy deletion case, although it is annoyingly close to multiple CSD criteria. jni (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not eligible for A7 or G5 speedy deletion. The article claims that he's a member of learned societies on three continents; you have to do something really impressive for that to be the case, so we have a clear claim of importance. It's also not a clear hoax, so we'll have to decide here at AFD whether to trust the claims. Meanwhile, the article's been edited by lots of different people, so the "which have no substantial edits by others" part of the G5 criterion is not the case. If this page is being repeatedly recreated, it's also better to let the AFD run its course, since you'll have a strong argument for salting. Nyttend (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the membership of various societies. Is there evidence that these are memberships by invitation rather than memberships by application? The latter would be a matter of paying your dues rather than having done "something really impressive". Without knowing specifics of the societies in question, I do note that the Canadian society's webpage features a large "Why join CSMB?" box on its front page, indicating an openness to membership by application. AllyD (talk) 07:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt No evidence of any notability. Claiming membership of a society is not a claim to notability in my eyes (it would be different if this was a claim of being a fellow or honorary member), because societies that only have invited membership are extremely rare (and national professional societies are never in this category, think national academies and such...) In view of the repeated recreations, salting is appropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm a member of PCCN. All it means is I can put those letter after my signature and get really great profession magazines. I'm by no means notable.PS I just blocked another sock and re-applied protection. Dlohcierekim 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Winkler[edit]

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

Notability not established. No major independent exhibitions noted nor significant coverage in independent media. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST #4, held in permanent collections "of several notable galleries or museums": Museum of Modern Art (extensive collection),[23] Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago,[24] Berlin State Museums,[25] Brooklyn Museum,[26] Yale University special collections.[27] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an artist makes books it's difficult to determine whether they're in the museum library (not in itself notable) or the collection (notable). The MOMA artist book collection is listed in their library, rather than the collection proper. Some artist books make it to the collection: for example Ruscha's 26 Gas Stations is definitely in the MOMA collection. The Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, is the best ref for notability, but I don't think it's enough..Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to determine MOMA library and not collection? It shows multiple locations and some of them say things like "artists file". Yale says "special collection" and not for circulation. And what about Berlin. If it is hard to tell, we should err on the side of caution and not delete a notable artist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets standard requirements. If they are collected as works of aert by major museums, the artist is notable . DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asociación Hermanos Saíz[edit]

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

More about the existence of Cuban Hip-hop instead of this foundation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Source examples include: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Saskia of Hanover[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BIO, being about a person who is only noted for being a relative of some royal personages. Smeat75 (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody finds something to say about the person (i.e. about her, not who she is related to). —Kusma (t·c) 22:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All sources I can find in both English and German spellings of her name only support minimal information in the article: name, relatives, titles claimed, etc. Not notable in her own right but simply for her family. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Olga of Hanover (b. 1958)[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BIO guidelines and has been tagged as lacking sources establishing notability for four years, this person is only noted for being a sister-in-law of Princess Caroline of Monaco. Smeat75 (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody finds something to say about the person (i.e. about her, not who she is related to). —Kusma (t·c) 22:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike a lot of the other royal articles that have been nominated, Princess Olga is not just in the line to pretender status, but is a British princess. I think that status makes one notable, seeing as the title is fairly rare, having 11 living holders according the British princess page. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper into it, I'm not entirely sure she is a British princess. She doesn't seem to fit the requirements as listed and sourced on the other page. The page that the title is referenced to in this article also doesn't seem to mention her being a British princess, and my Google search didn't turn up any other sources. If anyone could document that she was indeed a British princess, I would !vote keep, but for now, I am striking my !vote and am neutral. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the House of Hanover use the title "Prince/ss of Great Britain and Ireland" because they are descended in male line from King George III of the United Kingdom and the former custom was to recognize all such descendants as British princes and princesses. However, in 1917, King George V issued letters patent to restrict the title of prince/princess to fewer generations of descendants, which would have taken away the status of the Hanovers as British princes/princesses. The Hanovers, who lived in Germany, nevertheless continued to include "Prince/ss of Great Britain and Ireland" among their titles. So Princess Olga is not a British princess according to the British government; she's a British princess only according to the House of Hanover. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources I can find in both English and German spellings of her name only support minimal information in the article: name, relatives, titles claimed, etc. Not notable in her own right but simply for her family. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Weston Group[edit]

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

This page appears to be nothing more than an advert for an utterly non-notable commercial entity (WP:CORP) It is also an orphan.

(This is my first deletion request, and I'm afraid to tsay that the instructions are less than helpful - I'm sure that this page should have a template, but I failed to find it :-( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medconn (talk • contribs)

I fixed the nomination for you.--Atlan (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the fix. Comments I intended to add were that it has been flagged with several serious issues since 2010, and hadn't been rectified! Medconn (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Harrow[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a paticularly notable character. Sources around that I've found are predmoniately just plot descriptors; nothing about the casting etc. Ged UK 12:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. tutterMouse (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Boardwalk Empire characters as this and a few other spinout character articles from the show are mainly in-universe sourced and are simply not referenced enough by third party sources to justify a spinout article, I don't doubt this article will have the same issues as the other articles once filled out. tutterMouse (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In its current state it is a mess of an article, but the subject is notable and has been covered by a variety of reliable sources.Here's a few, of which almost all discuss out-of-universe topics, including casting, creation of the character, inspirations for the character, etc.:[34][35][36][37][38][39][40] LM2000 (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Character is relatively minor for the series. He doesn't really drive the plot of any season. --Ted87 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Algocracy[edit]

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

Although many references support the general concept of this article (that society is more and more governed by the technology it creates), the distillation of this concept into a single term, algocracy, appears to be the invention of a single author (Aneesh), without evidence of a larger move to adopt this term. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - it's a neologism that does not seem to have any significant use. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:50, 7 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) 02:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beast Quake[edit]

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

Article does not provide enough useful material beyond the seed article and merely references a single play from the game referenced in the seed article. Article creator keeps removing the delete tag and is the only source of any material on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.168.83 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - completed nomination for IP, who posted on WT:AfD. I am neutral for now but watching. Ansh6 6 6 01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources demonstrate notability beyond routine coverage, and there are already enough details that a merge to a broader article such as 2010–11 NFL playoffs would be counterproductive. Melchoir (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it! Why shouldn't an amazing play like that get its own Wikipeida page? There's evidence this play caused a seismic event. I think that's worth a Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.98.75 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are reliable sources provided that extend beyond routine coverage (i.e., just a game recap), and the information provided is sufficient enough to warrant its own page. I'd also like to add that the nom's rationale that Melchoir (the creator) is the only one thats providing info is also invalid per WP:INVOLVE: just because one is editing doesn't make the page not notable; as long as reliable sources and notability is proven (which it has), everything is fine. Zappa O Mati 00:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Was deleted by User:Coffee as part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wind turbines in Thuringia (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of wind turbines in Germany[edit]

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

The sub-lists linked from this list are being considered for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability and being completely unreferenced from the required secondary sources. The lists are such that secondary supporting sources are unlikely to ver be found, and I have not been able to find any myself. In the event the linked lists are deleted, then this list requires deletion as it will no longer fulfil any purpose. I B Wright (talk) 14:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably premature to relist this item until the fate of the sub-lists has been decided. I B Wright (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and cleanup. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Black (character)[edit]

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

Not one source, in-universe prose that doesn't distinguish fiction from reality and does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs to be cleaned up and treated like a fictional character, but subject is the protagonist of a nearly 30-year-old TV series in Japan, so sources will be difficult, but not impossible, to come by. I believe I have a book at home that discusses him, along with the other fictional characters in the franchise.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I second it as he is the main protagonist of his series and has made numerous appearances in future entries.Fractyl (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:18, 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, — Keithbob • Talk • 19:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. The nominator agrees the topic is notable and clean up is underway. (non-admin closure) — Keithbob • Talk • 18:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PernixData[edit]

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

Just nine Google News hits. I checked Google News Archive as well, but in the archive there are zero hits. Please delete.

[Edit: MelanieN has convinced me that the subject passes WP:CORP. But still, our entire article reads like a press release. Even the lead section reads like a press release. The original author is a SPA, and each of the article's four major contributors is a SPA. I could trim the article down to a stub, but even the stub would still read like a press release. And I don't understand what the company does, so it would be difficult for me to rewrite the lead section. Unless someone fixes the lead section before this AfD ends, please slow-delete per CSD G11.]

—Unforgettableid (talk) 10:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep I found the same results as nominator in a search: namely, just press releases at Google News and literally nothing at Google News Archive. However, the article itself contains links to significant coverage from Forbes, TechCrunch, and InfoWorld among others. I don't know how to explain the discrepancy, but I think the supplied coverage may be enough to pass WP:CORP. The article does need trimming to remove the excess detail about the corporate officers and the boosterish tone of the product description, but those are article issues unrelated to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN. Thank you for contributing. In response to your words, I've put forth an additional argument above. Does this convince you to change your vote? :) Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I can make the article more acceptable. I'll give it a try later today when I have more time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the SPA and promo issues, the company does have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Article should be trimmed to remove promo content, but that is outside of the scope of afd. Dialectric (talk) 12:34, 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) 01:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have trimmed the article by about a third, eliminating the autobiographical and promotional aspects and (hopefully) making the lead a little more understandable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. L Faraone 02:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Academy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. No reliable source to establish the notability of this organisation. SMS ^Talk 15:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:55, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 15:56, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I wasn't aware earlier that this article was recreated after a previous AfD, so in that case CSD#G4 also applies here. -- SMS ^Talk 16:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added this reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw it during WP:BEFORE and didn't find it a reliable source. I don't mind if it is used in the article to support that two lines but it is not useful in anyway for establishing notability. Even if it was a reliable source, it hardly say anything about the subject as required by WP:ORG. -- SMS ^Talk 10:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep. After redrafting this article I added more references, please remove the deletion template. -- Mirajbibi (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC) — Mirajbibi (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Akbaralighazi (talk • contribs). -- SMS ^Talk 21:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have added are not reliable at all. Per Notability criteria for Organizations, there should be:

reliable sources, covering the subject significantly. I am unable to find any of these attributes in the sources you provided and also they discuss the subject trivially. -- SMS ^Talk 15:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per general notability guidelines. I can find no independent sources in LexisNexis treating the academy. There is one currently cited source, the Dardistan Times, that may be independent (I don't know), and another Dardistan Times article was linked in the earlier AfD. That doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability. The fact that both come from the same publication also does not inspire confidence. Cnilep (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life Time Fitness[edit]

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

Finishing nomination for User:76.112.21.55, whose rationale was "Despite the efforts of a few people, this article remains a blatant advertisement for a fairly disreputable company and should be deleted in my opinion." I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No real issues seen with the article, and nearly all health clubs have the same issues with billing and such. "Disreputable" isn't a good reason to delete an article. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroko Kitamura[edit]

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

MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA with only 1 top tier fight. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet NMMA.204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Sheahan (publican)[edit]

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

Not notable. Played for Auckland (what team, what level?) and New Zealand Barbarians but both fall short of WP:NRU. Lacks coverage about Sheahan in multiple independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Captain of the Auckland Rugby Union team.Rick570 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to a source in the article, and the article itself, [42] he captained the Auckland provincial rugby side, and played first-class rugby in New Zealand. This alone makes him notable. Article could use a bit of a clean up, but meets GNG and very hard to argue he is non-notable. WP:NRU is rubbish, and should be used with caution. Have to AGF with the offline source, but am happy to keep. -- Shudde ^talk 11:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He captained a first-class rugby team in New Zealand; the notification rules for rugby don't really cover the amateur era, but Auckland is a long-lasting and very successful team so it's a significant role in one of the world's leading rugby nations. Sources will be offline in New Zealand papers and magazines. If kept, article should be renamed to Pat Sheahan (rugby player). --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lots of single purpose accounts it seems here. Deleting. Any concerns with the deletion of this article, please take it to deletion review, thank you. SarahStierch (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jedediah Bila[edit]

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

The only accomplishment here which might be notable is her book, but it was apparently self published and is in only 19 libraries.. The Washington Times "article" is actually a press release (it says at the bottom: . Contributors are responsible for this content, which is not edited by The Washington Times) -- and even so, all they can say is that she is "gaining a reputation"., which translates for WP as not yet notable.

The article is being actively maintained by a contributor who has worked on this article and nothing else. It was accepted from AfC , & I've notified the ed. who accepted it. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. The article is a variation of her website bio page,[43] arguably copyvio. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the editor who accepted this at AfC. There are a few Google News hits, which may be what induced me to accept it, but on closer inspection I don't see any in-depth coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think her extensive television appearances make her notable. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. But she has been interviewed numerous times and what's in the article is verifiable. She's appearing in fairly prominent shows on popular channels, writing columns, and cohosting. She's written a book, even if it was self-published. An argument for toosoon can certainly be made, but I think it's probably in the interest of our readers to provide coverage of this biographical subject and I think it's reasonable to assume that her notability will only increase over time (she was hired by Fox as a contributor in 2013). So I'm going with Keep. I think what coverage she has received, a lot of it not in the mainstream, is cumulatively sufficient to establish notability. For example on November 19, 2013 she made Mediaite's list of 50 sexiest in TV News. "Fox News contributor Jedediah Bila pops up across that network to share her opinion from time to time, but she really comes alive on the 3am broadcast of Red Eye, where her chemistry with host Greg Gutfeld is palpable." She's no Walter Cronkite, but seems to be making some waves and getting noticed. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry if Im not doing everything correctly in writing this. Wikipedia is def an "inside group of ppl" who talk about rules constantly that I know nothing about being that I haven't spent much time here. I just wanted to add my 2 cents. I was reading one of my favorite websites "Twitchy" (which is an extremely popular high trafficked website), and one of the "articles" was about Jedidiah Bila. I was thinking to myself "Who?" The article spoke of her as though she was a household name, so I was curious to see who she was. So I searched Google and found her bio here on Wikipedia. I quickly read it and was satisfied. Information filed. So I happened to see it was up for deletion? I think that would be a bad idea, esp when there are obviously people looking her up to find out about her. Just my input. thanks Sedated Princess (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (comment moved here from article talk page)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think one of the most charming aspects of Wikipedia is that articles can come from amateurs. All articles need to have a square one. Readers should be more concerned about the veracity of the information rather than style. The information in the article can be verified relatively easily if it hasn't been done already. Since Ms. Bila is a significant contributor to a political viewpoint, deleting her article can be seen as an attack on that viewpoint. That is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. An editor could ask the public for a review of her book as well as comments on its reception. This will expand the article and end the process for deletion. One reason for the paucity of information of the article is the fact that she is young and is relatively new to punditry. She has a promising future and Wikipedia should offer her a place for her career to be summarized. The current article sets a reasonable foundation for future contributions.MrSottobanco (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)MrSottobanco[reply]

Keep - Notible author, media personality Bwmoll3 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. I wanted to know who she is, the information was available here. Is there any reason other than that to keep an article? (posted by Gamecock96 on talk page of deletion discussion)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unquestionably, she is a notable person with an impressive list of accomplishments, particularly in view of her age. If the criterion is to be degree of notability, she is much more of a household name than many other subjects of Wikipedia articles which are not being proposed for deletion. Is it possible that the initiative to delete this article is coming from those with an ideological ax to grind? MAGoldberg (talk) 07:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course it's possible that ideology may influence deletion nominations... but I'm sure that's not the case here. It's also not particularly likely that others (particularly Cerebellum, who approved the initial article) would just happen to agree solely on that basis. Discussions (and nominations) are centred around notability requirements. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BASIC. -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 00:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 02:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Davide Giannoni[edit]

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

I admit this version of the sport is unfamiliar to me, but unless every professional athlete is automatically notable (in which case so should be every person who earns a living as a professional at anything) , I don't see anything making for notability here. The article was written after being rejected at AfC, and we need some programatic way of detecting these). I don't think any of the sources listed as external links are sources for notability .

I believe we have in the past been fairly skeptical about athletes claiming notability as the national representative of very small nations (in this case, pretty much the extreme that way, San Marino. ). I also notice the 7th item in "competitions" is worded in the first person, " 2010 I became part of the European circuit" .

I notice the main article for the sport (or version of the sport) , Vert skating, says in the text there are fewer than 15 professionals, but goes on to list 44 professionals notable enough for articles in WP. And I call attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vert skating--I've notified the main particpants there. I leave further discussion here to people who actually know the topic.--all I feel competent to do is identify a possible problem. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After taking a look at the top 120 or so responses on a google search of "Davide Giannoni" + "biography," I've got nothin'... Carrite (talk) 23:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - and I preface my comment by saying that my area of expertise (if you could call it that at all) is skateboarding (see WP:SKATE) rather than inline skating. To address the 15/44 issue - I imagine the 15 would be those who are professional and compete in Vert skating and nothing else in the inline skating sphere. Like skateboarding, you can specialise in one particular event - vert skateboarding, street skateboarding, slalom skateboarding, etc - or you can compete in various disciplines. There are probably 44 inline skaters who regularly compete in vert competitions among other things but only a handful who do so and nothing else. With regard to skateboarding (though we are working on some formal guidelines) the informal consensus has generally been that a skater has to either meet WP:GNG or have won some fairly notable international competitions to be considered notable (in the same vein as WP:NOLYMPICS. Winning several X Games medals, for example, or cumulative points competitions at an international invitational (like the Maloof Money Cup) would probably be sufficient. The competitions won by the subject would not be in that category and the links to the ones in the infobox go back to vert skating and they likely wouldn't be notable enough for their own articles. Winning a single event one year at [King of Diga is not really a big deal. Stalwart111 04:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why do I have to explain this over and over like if its rocket science.. let me give you an example here, Pelé the greatest footballer in history aka (Edson Arantes do Nascimento) doesn't play football anymore, so he's not a professional anymore! does that mean we have to remove him from wikipedia? vert skating was included in the first xgames in 1995 and many athletes won medals, yes much more than those listen in the vert skating page, I just cant find sources and you ask why currently 14? XK8ER (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also skaters like Moises Moisty Abreu, Manuel Billiris, Chris Edwards (skater), Rene Hulgreen, Matt Salerno, Shane Yost are legends in this sport, and they're not competing anymore. the only xgames for vert skating right now is held in China at the Shanghai XGames after it was removed from the ESPN in the US due to issues with TV ratings. so not only they get all of their competitions terminated but also their careers and only way of making money. Now also removed from wikipedia nice! XK8ER (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Say what? We're not talking about vert skating, we're talking about the BLP of a vert skater. Winning X Games medals in 1995 would be just as significant as winning them in 2012 per WP:NOTTEMP. Medals won in Shanghai would be as valid as medals won in LA or Miami or Sydney. Retired pro-skaters are just as likely to be considered notable as current skaters if they won major competitions or received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's the issue here - there is a comprehensive list of event wins/places in the subject's article and none seem significant. He also doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG (and is a current pro, from what I can tell, not a retired pro from 1995). Nobody is suggesting we delete Shane Yost (who won 21 X Games medals and was formally and formerly ranked number 1 in the world), that would be silly. Any comment on this person in particular? Stalwart111 20:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: he is not from the US so I doubt you will find him on google.com but you can use google.it like https://www.google.it/#q=Davide+Giannoni+pattinatore

@Stalwart111: see some articles here:

http://www.sanmarinonotizie.com/?p=58361

http://www.sanmarinonotizie.com/?p=53528

http://www.newsrimini.it/news/2013/giugno/11/san_marino/pattinaggio_acrobatico._davide_giannoni_9a__ai_kia_world_extreme_games.html

http://www.rimini.com/news/pattinaggio--davide-giannoni-a-nantes-per-il-gladiator-contest.php

XK8ER (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with those sources is that they are all centred around a tiny geographic location - San Marino and Rimini - and don't really substantiate notability outside of the confines of his home town. Local press about a local person competing in (but not necessarily winning) international competitions probably wouldn't be considered "significant coverage". Others may disagree but that's my understanding of existing consensus. Anything like that from wider national Italian press or international news? Stalwart111 00:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll find something useful if you put enough time to research, good luck! XK8ER (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I was about to close this as delete, but wanted to check whether the athlete indeed fails WP:N (WP:NSPORTS does not say anything about Xtreme sports, from what I can see, and WP:N applies). I searched in Italian and was able to found a couple of things where he is described in some detail: Italian rollerblading magazine, Romagna Gazzette - the provincial newspaper, not just Rimini, and a couple of local Rimini articles were reprinted by national media, such as here.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:48, 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) 00:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Ymblanter. I was about to close this as no consensus but found a couple more refs.[44][45] -- Trevj (talk | contribs) 11:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Salinas-Jones[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMMA and sources fail to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:NMMA LiberatorLX (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Into the Rift (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Amílcar Alves[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Schreckengost[edit]

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

Notability has not been established; clearly self-promotional, and author has a conflict of interest. Uyvsdi (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 2. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 00:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability guidelines. Much of the article is not referenced. Although it has 8 refs for the rest, none of them are really about Mr. Scheckengost. Of the refs given, Ref 1 makes no mention of Schreckengost, Ref 2 is broken, Ref 3 only goes to a search box, Refs 4 and 5 only work when pasted into a web browser and they are a long paper and a bibliography that each refers to two articles by Mr. Scheckengost out of many articles cited. Ref 6 is a review of a book by Mr. Scheckengost and comes closest to a useful ref (but is about the book, not the author), and Refs 7 and 8 are to two articles by Mr. Scheckengost, which are primary sources. I note this article was deleted once before. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:01, 7 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.