The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes Tacitus' Annales essential? How is Pausanias an extensive writer about Egypt? The "various subjects" is the giveaway. How many of those 16th-century works are essential, unique or ground-breaking? Almost none of these sourcse are primary. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]This is a list of writers who have written extensively about Egypt and their produced accounts, and may be considered essential, the only, highly popular, ground breaking, major or primary sources on various subjects related to Egyptian history.
The result was closed. Since this AfD is exactly the same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trust in Me (Katy Perry song) and for extremely similar media (non-notable Katy Perry singles from the same album), they will be bundled. Beerest355 Talk 00:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable single from an artist who later became notable Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Katy Hudson (album). Article history left intact if anyone would like to merge relevant information to the redirect target. ~ mazca talk 08:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable single from an artist who later became notable Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both articles into the main article on Kate Perry. Change the incumbent song article titles into redirects to the appropriate sections of the main Kate Perry article. Rammer (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested WP:PROD. This article is based entirely on a patent of 1905 that did not see production. There is a bit of secondary coverage about this patent in a book by Chinn, in the context of the development of revolver cannons (or better said, revlover autocannons, because they involve autoloading from a belt.) I have added the information to the latter article. According to Chinn, Clarke's patent was basically ignored because it came during the heyday of the Maxim and Browning designs; the Mauser developers of the first revolver autocannon were apparently unaware of this patent. There is some unverifiable information in this article as well, e.g. the intended/desired rate of fire, but that's about par for articles created by this group of accounts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete (G7: Author requested) by DGG (talk · contribs)
Non-notable person. A laudable person, whose charity and leadership have received notice from the communities in which he is active, but not any broad significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable artist. Other than works written about her by her own sons, and a brief mention in passing that one or some of her works will be shown in a retrospective consisting of many artists, there does not appear to be any coverage of this artist anywhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy delete as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hoax. There is no Satellite navigation systems project in South Korea. There is no Google hit before February 2013 in which this article was created.[1] The article is a modification of Indian Regional Navigational Satellite System. The creator made another hoax edit to Nuclear submarine[2] and others,[3][4] and was blocked indefinitely. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This player fails WP:GNG (due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources) as well as WP:NFOOTBALL (he has not played in a fully-professional league). GiantSnowman 20:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This convention does not appear to be notable, as it has not been (as near as I can tell) the subject of significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources as outlined at WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems non-notable and isn't going to become so anytime soon. Ducknish (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non notable yoga teacher of a non notable organisation. Uncletomwood (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two references stated above by another editor are news items which featured in the local editions of the supplements of the Hindu and Deccan Herald.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was 'Speedy keep - Withdrawn by nominator
A journalist with nothing notable (hatchet job excepted which is hardly a major award). Fails WP:AUTHOR 1-4. Widefox; talk 19:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Google Analytics#History. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NN company, formerly the article is just a promo piece for its former execs who have heavily edited the article. It seems like this company is adequately covered in Google_Analytics#History and a redirect there would be sufficient. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
unremarkable non notable civil servant Uncletomwood (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the hindu mentioning about him doesn't make him notable,a lot of civil servants are authors,speakers and motivators but that dosen't mean that they get an article on wikipedia.I agree he is a well known person among some circles but that dosent warrant him an article. Moreover the does not meet WP:GNG.Uncletomwood (talk) 06:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fail WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested procedurally since the article was previously nominated for deletion. The delete rationale remains valid nonetheless. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested Prod. The article seems to describe a non-notable company. The "Museum" stub seems to be incorrect as well. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 19:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
non notable businessman,most of the references are about his company not him Uncletomwood (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear notable per WP:N. Article is an orphan and a stub. Ahecht (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:CRIME A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. also A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured sarvajna (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Since the reslisting no further discussion has taken place, and as such there's no consensus for deletion. If you wish to further discuss, please take it to DRV. If an admin disagrees, feel free to revert. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 18:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable musical release. No evidence of charting, awards or independent in depth coverage. PROD removed by IP without improvement to the article. I'm not finding anything reliable in google, but I don't read Korean and the name is pretty generic. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. On balance, consensus is that the sourcing isn't quite strong enough. Can be userfied on request. Sandstein 09:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, poorly-referenced, full of WP:PUFFERY - a non-notable spawn from Half-Life that has zero requirements for an article of its own (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Level of readership is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is not notable, poor citations, written like an advertisement Popcornduff (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 09:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been deleted 6 times as non-notable or purely promotional and was PROD'd in June 2013 (PROD notice was removed with a statement that the company is notable). An earlier version of the article with promotional content was recreated at Synechron Technologies and I early closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synechron Technologies as merge to here. There were no arguments for keeping that article. In addition, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faisal Husain was closed in March 2013 as merge to this article. Clearly there are concerns about the notability of this company, and the sourcing does not in my opinion sufficiently demonstrate it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found no coverage. Not even a single review. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy Deleted under criteria A7 by User:Nyttend. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Promotional article with copyvio issues whose subject fails GNG. Andrew327 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to North Korean studies. Nomination to delete withdrawn in favour of redirecting to North Korean studies (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 01:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable publication. Independent sources in the article are just in-passing mentions of the journal. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Just one of many pdf editors. noq (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subjective, verified citations, orphan, advertisement, notability Notnoteworthy (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Annapolis, Maryland#Education. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG and historic AfD decisions, elementary and middle schools are not notable. No hits on Gnews and just books with passing mention on Gbook. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy deletion per CSD A7. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a false article entered for the purpose of leading to a commercial advertisement site: "References" section links to an "OpenLearn.in" web site site that leads here... http://ww2.openlearn.in/, among valid links, the "External Links" section links to to a nonexistent site "OpenLRN"... http://www.openlrn.org/ ELApro (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually the second nomination for deletion of this article. Checking the History, a first nomination for speedy deletion was made 04:32, 26 May 2013 by 117.244.230.42 but was restored by SFK2 for reason: "not a valid CSD criteria." ELApro (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Martin Brodeur. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NHOCKEY as a seventh-round pick who has not had a substantial amateur award and who hasn't played sufficiently in either the NHL or another professional league. My own preference is redirect to Martin Brodeur (preserving the information in the history so that, in the future he does achieve notability on his own that a revert can easily occur), but I wanted to submit to a discussion because delete is certainly a possible alternative. --Nlu (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not supported by secondary sources. The term on which the article is based appears to be only significantly used by the author of the paper introducing it (who also appears to be the creator and main editor of the Wikipedia article). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
violation of WP:SOURCE,WP:IRS,WP:SPS,WP:NOR,WP:IMPORTANCE Paspaspas (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Causes for deletion:
The result was delete. I am discounting the keep votes, because they are essentially wrong under the NEO policy. There is no need to cover the term itself. The Congress articles already cover criticisms. Editors can mention the existence of this term there, if it is indeed legit. But there's no need for a separate article about the term. -- Y not? 01:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO and not even a popular one with but 16,200 hits on Google. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:BLPNOTE and WP:AUTHOR. Okiishi book is not meet the 4 noteworthiness requirement for Creative professionals. The attempt to apply the creative professional rules to Okiishi totally misses the point. He is an academic, not a creative professional. He is also not notable for his work in the LDS Church. There have been hundreds of bishops, counselors in a stake presidencies, stake patriarch and "presidents" of LDS Missions, none of which have pages, unless they were noteworthy for other reasons. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Speedy keep. Nominator has withdrawn nomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to meet WP:BLPNOTE, there have been hundreds of "president" of LDS Missions, none of which have pages, unless they were noteworthy for other reasons. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 15:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Electro house. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vague and completely unsourced, poorly written, no sources to be found to support its content. Also seems to be written from a personal point of view. Hiddenstranger (talk) 11:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable software. No independent sources to be found. The sole citation (from Science magazine's website) only mentions this product in a reader comment posted by the product's author. PROD removed by author. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:07, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article based entirely on a 1985 patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. I can't find any independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mall. Two refs, one is not independent and one doesn't provide in-depth coverage, but only a directory listing. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be on Wikipedia!!!!!! It just like saying that New York isn't notable please help me out and keep it on wikipedia, if anyone can find anything on the mall add to the page. Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for Helping I hope that it can stay on here and Orlady Thank you for you Help, patience and Kindness!! Jesus Lover0000 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. Closed early per WP:SNOW. I have no doubt at all that the same outcome will result after seven days. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this article on wikipedia? Is it important enough for its own article? Isnt there a rule that says that there has to be something somewhere saying that this is important? Most of the article is about how other things other than chilli burgers are important like the whole history section. If they are so important shouldnt that content be in separate articles about those things? GotGlue (talk) 05:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Creating AfD is the account's only edit to Wikipedia. The AfD banner was not placed on the article page but I've now done this. Dricherby (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was keep. For the purposes of this AfD, I construed all the merge opinions as keep. I am not sure there's consensus to merge, or whether it'll be overwhelming to the parent article (or UNDUE or whatever). But these are editorial decisions to be make in the ordinary course of things. For now, we have consensus to keep this content. -- Y not? 20:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a memorial. This single isolated incident amounts to an industrial accident of a high-profile company, and occupational hazard for the deceased. Any notable durable details should go into that CdS article. Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 06:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kà, which has a small section called "Accidents and Incidents" that should be renamed "Death of Sarah Guyard-Guillot" (since there are no other deaths yet) and can hold the necessary information from this article. The "Background" section of this article is completely irrelevant to this woman, no one really cares about her life before she joined this circus, and the "Death" and "Reaction" section have way too much unneeded detail. I also don't see her death having a major impact on the circus as most media coverage has already died down, which means it will not likely lead to any significant reforms since circus accidents are not too uncommon. The sad truth is that if she didn't die, we would not know who she is since circus performers are generally not notable. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, fails WP:CORP. Tyros1972 Talk 12:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Copula (probability theory)#Definition. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random math tutorials. I believe WP:NOTHOWTO is the relevant guideline. King Jakob C2 01:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was merge to Long Island serial killer. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:VICTIM and WP:1E. Merging with Long Island serial killer is a possibility as well. —Mikemoral♪♫ 09:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a notable person. Tyros1972 Talk 11:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was redirect to Deadmau5 discography. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on the ((notability)) tag here, I believe this self-released compilation fails WP:NALBUMS, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Check "Deadmau5 Circa 1998–2002" -wikipedia There's a Discogs page, but otherwise it's all fan sites and downloads. There's no mention on Allmusic, and I was unable to find any reviews for the album, though I'm sure there are other editors better at finding those than me. BDD (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. King Jakob C2 14:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th external links are all dead links. I couldn't find any significant coverage. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While it might be used quite a bit, Travis CI doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion in WP:NSOFT. Furthermore, most of its references are primary sources. The ones that are not are non-reliable sources or blogs. In addition, I didn't see any other reliable sources from searching around in Google. It is also an incredibly short article. If consensus is not to delete, this article needs some serious work on content and references. Vacation9 02:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is included on the Python Guide [34] arguably one of the main Python tutoring resources. Sebastian 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tian2992 (talk • contribs)
Vacation9 14:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]"Coverage of the software in passing, such as being part of a how-to document, do not normally constitute significant coverage but should be evaluated. Inclusion of software in lists of similar software generally does not count as deep coverage."
- Brian Ford - from [39]--greenrd (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]"What Github did for sharing code, Travis CI will do for testing code. The value of this service cannot be overstated. Travis CI is a paradigm shift. The world will be a better place when every open-source developer is running their test suite on Travis CI."
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is an essay written for a course, a content fork of Evolutionary psychology and Cognition; it's been abandoned since the end of the course. WP:MOS is observed more in breach than observation. Lack of online sources limits the number of potential contributors to those with physical access the a research library. Conceivably an article could be written on this topic (and I have nothing against the topic per se), but it would be less work to start over. See also the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychology of kin selection and family. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Insufficient non-PR sources to support notability. In my opinion, unwisely accepted from AfC DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 18:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. recent discussion on WP:BIO showed ambassadors are not inherently notable. gnews comes up with statements by him as a govt spokesperson not an ambassador. in any case this does not establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was REDIRECT to Synechron. Early closure, article was elegible for speedy deletion under criterion A10. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably notable but as written is highly self serving. Written like an advertisement. reddogsix (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I would recommend a speedy deletion under WP:G11, as it is currently nothing but an advertisement in its current form and I can see no way to change that.--RPhilbrook (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Can be recreated if the sourcing situation improves. For future reference, the entire contents were: "Thongsavanh Phomvihane is a Lao diplomat and a former Ambassador of Laos to Russia". Sandstein 09:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. a mere 2 gnews hits excluding the WP article. a discusion on WP:BIO resulted in no consensus for automatic notability for ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. No judgment on whether a redirect might be useful. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Way too early (Feb. 2014) and unsourced (WP:FUTURE). Musdan77 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spammy article with few outside sources. References a CV, another wiki, and some consulting sites. Fails WP:ORG LFaraone 23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am currently gathering many outside sources references to provide/incorporate -- frankly, I could use some assistance in figuring out exactly what needs to be done and changed on the page to bring it up to standards. Drdan01 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this organization's page is justified under WP:ORG: Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations: Non-commercial organizations[edit] "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources. Additional considerations are: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements...." Regarding the above, this organization has 120,000 members worldwide (therefore international in scale), and is recognized as the only international in scope knowledge management professional society, and has existed since 2001 (longevity - longer than any other KM association). Regarding LFaraone's above comments, the CV and web site citations were in reference to the named individuals (who are in themselves notables within the knowledge management community) and weren't intended as outside source secondary references for the organization itself. Given the above, I believe that the organization meets the criteria, in the same way that Project_Management_Institute does. I'll work on assembling and documenting the secondary source citations to add to the page. Drdan01 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hear what you're saying but I think that you've misunderstood my above -- I have found those secondary sources, but haven't yet had the chance to make revisions and additions and will get to that shortly. Drdan01 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable set of four YouTube clips. Originally PRODded but uploader removed the tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was All speedy deleted by Tokyogirl79. (Non-admin closure) Ansh666 06:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC) (If you think I shouldn't have closed this for any reason, drop me a comment at my talk. Thanks!)[reply]
Non-notable set of four YouTube clips. Originally PRODded but uploader removed the tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was speedy close. Discussion has been bundled here. (NAC) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable set of four YouTube clips. Originally PRODded but uploader removed the tag. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It has no sources and no notability.--RPhilbrook (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article based entirely on a 2004 patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source as far as WP:GNG is concerned. I can't find any independent sources. Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation page disambiguates Naver and Strathnaver. These pages already contain hatnotes, so the disambiguation page is unnecessary. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources in the article and it's impossible to find a single one to support the reliability of its content, which makes it a classical example of original research. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]