< 21 July	23 July >

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction[edit]

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

Creating for an IP user. Reasoning copied from the talk page:

This page on a medical topic, erectile dysfunction, is not currently supported by reliable medical sources. I have been unable to find any recent ones on PubMed. While I do not have access to PsycINFO, potential sources I've examined on GoogleScholar and Google Books have all been anecdotal and fail WP:MEDRS. Additionally, the current title does not appear on either GoogleScholar [1] or Google Books [2] (though there are several hundred non-reliable entries on Google [3]). Per consensus at WT:MED#Pornography-induced_erectile_dysfunction [4], the topic does not appear notable enough for a stand-alone article. If reliable medical sources can be produced on the topic, the information could be added into the Erectile dysfunction page.
86.161.251.139 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My posting this should not be construed as a !vote or commentary on the merits or demerits of this debate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not be medically reliable, but the meme passes WP:GNG by leaps and bounds. Perhaps the title and or wording should be changed to indicate it is not a medically established fact. Broadening the topic may be helpful. Other forms of sexual dysfunction are also associated (maybe not scientificially, but still) with excessive porn viewing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The page clearly sets out to describe a clinical condition, NOT an internet meme. Wikipedia cannot just start inventing clinical conditions in this way, based on individual opinion and memes. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but that can be addressed via editing. WP:NOTCLEANUP Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you demonstrate how by editing the page? I don't see any unambiguous way of doing that: the page title itself clearly implies a clinical condition—erectile dysfunction. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Erectile dysfunction (as proposer). 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, essentially per Gaijin42 (talk · contribs), above. Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also per Gaijin42 (talk · contribs) above. All concerns of nom can be solved by editing, and as such deletion policy requires article to be kept. If the title is misleading, it can be moved to a new title. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then do it. Clean the article! Show it can be done through action, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to show it. None of the concerns are about notability or intrinsic unsuitability of the topic, the nomination therefore asks for cleanup. About doing it myself, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough on the topic, nor sure of what cleanup to do, to help now. But I could try later. However it is the nominator who is worried about the article: she/he should start working on it. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are concerns about the notability of the topic. None of the sources is reliable per MEDRS, and so far no searches have yielded any reliable sources either. As Wikipedia defines it, this suggests a notability issue. Lesion (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Erectile disfunction. I don't think this is notable enough without enough sources. Beerest355 Talk 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per my and others' comments at the article's talk page that support deleting or redirecting it. Like I stated there: "As the IP knows, I'm the one who started the aforementioned discussion. I agree with the IP, and this article should be deleted or, in case MEDRS-compliant sources are found for it or eventually exist to support it, redirected to the Erectile dysfunction article. The matter can be sufficiently covered in that article once, if ever, it has MEDRS-compliant sources to support it. I would suggest merging, but there is apparently nothing valid to merge. The view that the sources used for this information on Wikipedia thus far are unreliable is additionally supported by this edit and this edit by Jytdog at the Erectile dysfunction article." Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator. I have edited the article to address the concerns mentioned here. The subject is definitely notable as a meme, and it is usually called by the article title. --Editor2286 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The concerns are by no means addressed in the current version [5]. "Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction or impotence is the reported inability to develop or maintain an erection caused by heavy pornography use" is clearly a medical claim. Reporting is a key aspect of medical research and causality is difficult to verify. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it was obvious that the reporting meant was men reporting their condition on internet forums, but I have edited it again to read "...is the inability to develop or maintain an erection purportedly caused by heavy pornography use." --Editor2286 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is people reporting things on internet forums a reliable source for anything? The internet, Sea of Cowards that it is, allows people to say whatever they want with no requirement for any evidence or accountability. It also allows one or two people with non-mainstream opinions to appear to be many people by the creation of sock puppets. How do we know this is not a single person with religious, anti-pornography moralistic views, who is making up some stories about how pornography gave them erectile dysfunction? We simply don't, and this is why it is not reliable evidence. Some of the sources used in this stub may regard things people say on internet forums as reliable evidence that there is a issue here, and I think this rightly leads us to conclude that those sources are unreliable. Maybe some researchers might give this attention in the years to come, and maybe someone will publish a reliable secondary source citing that research. At that point, not before, wikipedia should create an article on the topic. Lesion (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“

The internet is an unreliable source

”

— Abraham Lincoln

(Forgot which user I borrowed this quote from, but it has stuck with me). Lesion (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does the current version [6] address the issue: a statement of the type Y-induced X is X purportedly caused by Y is essentially meaningless. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The RS is Psych Today, which is not a MEDRS but is an RS for the fact that hundreds of men are reporting this phenomenon. It. is not self-published, and there is no requirement for RSes to not be internet based. Of course the men saying porn caused there ED have no scientific reliability on the matter, but the phenomenon of self-diagnosed ED appears to have been covered by enough RSes to be notable. I understand that the first sentence of the article would be circular if it meant that ED can really be caused by porn, but it doesn't and that's the point. It defines this thing as when someone says they got ED from porn and makes no judgement as to whether that's true. --Editor2286 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think the line of reasoning in that rebuttal speaks for itself. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's similar to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in that it's defined by a self-diagnosed causitive effect. --Editor2286 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hesitate before drawing parallels with the above article, which has a wealth of formal scientific research, albeit concluding that it doesn't exist, whereas this topic has no research that has been brought forward in this discussion. Lesion (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unlike here, Google Scholar (for instance) lists many articles regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity [7], and the WP page on the topic cites ideal sources, per WP:MEDRS (see for example [8]). By contrast, no serious candidate WP:MEDRS source has been produced so far for the present topic. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only drew the parallel with respect to the definition, which is something defined by people saying their symptoms are caused by a particular (dubious) source. You (the IP) called that circular. --Editor2286 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- if this is being presented as a medical condition, then there need to be MEDRS compliant sources. People reporting something on an internet forum does not make it a real medical condition, it's just more people stating boring opinions on the internet (**hypocrisy alert**). The blog and the Dr Oz show are definitely not suitable sources, I can't assess the book, but it's using terms like "sexual brain maps" I wonder how mainstream it is... per above comment from a reliable editor, a search for sources on PubMed, google scholar did not find anything on this supposed condition. Redirect is only appropriate if a MEDRS source can be found to support some of this content ... unless ... there is potential mention of this based upon these same sources in "society and culture" sections of erectile dysfunction and/or pornography. I generally think that WP:RS generally rather than WP:MEDRS applies to the history and society and culture sections of medical pages. This would be the appropriate way to document a "meme" and present it as it is rather than presenting it as a medical condition when it is not. I would alter the wording of such content to reflect the lack of medical sources, but this might be hard to do without breaching WP:OR. Lesion (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were at ED, it'd be removed as fringe and undue. But if it is notable fringiness, which I think is demonstrated by the existing refs, then it deserves a page. --Editor2286 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That point didn't make sense to me. If not notable for inclusion on either erectile dysfunction or pornography how can it be notable for its own page? Content which was worded and sourced appropriately and given due weight in either article (within the society and culture section) might be appropriate. I would personally phrase it like this:

"Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction" is a term used by some sources to refer to a supposed phenomena informally reported by individuals in internet forums. These individuals claimed that they experienced erectile problems as a result of heavy pornography use.["Non MEDRS but RS source"] However, there is no credible evidence for the existence of such a disorder.

The trouble is, you would need a source to state the lack of evidence, otherwise arguably it is OR. Might be best to wait for some formal research to appear (if indeed that ever happens) before trying to build content about this topic. Lesion (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a ton of articles on fringery, because they meet GNG, but UNDUE says we keep it off the main page of a legit topic to avoid giving it undue legitimacy. It would be good if there were better sources, but I'm arguing that sufficient sources exist for GNG. --Editor2286 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A page titled Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction clearly refers to the medical condition erectile dysfunction and would obviously be some some sort of a subpage of Erectile dysfunction. But without any WP:MEDRS sourcing, that is untenable. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted the blog and the tv show are not reliable. This purports to be a medical condition, and the sourcing is clearly inadequate for that. what is left is half a paragraph from the book The Brain That Changes Itself, which does not meet WP:MEDRS, and does not give sufficient coverage anyway. To claim an internet meme is notable you need to show that it is of note. This is done through WP:GNG. This has not been shown, I found no reliable sources, and thus the article inherently violates WP:NPOV as it can not be made neutrally without implying that Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction exists despite no MEDRS source stating that. Symptomatic of this is that despite 5 days at AfD, the article still fails WP:MEDRS requirements and makes claims about Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to erectile dysfunction. If any real reliable sources become available, can be discussed there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, marginal sources are in use, and they have been used inappropriately to extend one author's opinion to medical causation. The notion should be removed from Wikipedia until/unless a WP:MEDRS-compliant source is available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not redirect. I completely agree with the IP nominator and with IRWolfie. This topic fails WP:MEDRS by a country mile, and thus should not have its own article here as if to imply it is a real medical condition. The only halfway-reputable-sounding reference in the article, from Psychology Today, turns out to be from a sort of advice column rather than any kind of study - and everything else I found is just laymen (no pun intended) speculating and talking in generalities. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking up that book source. I think the counter argument to this point that is being made above is that this is a cultural phenomena ("meme") rather than a scientific one, and as such, naturally there are no MEDRS compliant sources, but it still may be notable as a cultural thing. I don't have a huge problem with this content as long as it is not making out that it is a real medical condition, which is what it is doing currently. Phrasing I suggested above might be better if the content is merged, and the locations would be most appropriate in the society and culture section of either pornography and/or erectile dysfunction. That is assuming that the sources meet RS. Lesion (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any sources that discuss this as an example of a 'cultural thing'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally would need a source to say there is no formal scientific evidence, as I mentioned above... and such a statement might constitute OR without a supporting source. I guess I feel that if there is no evidence for something, I would rather Wikipedia say there is no evidence than not discuss it all. People will just go elsewhere to less responsible sources for advice. Appreciate what I just said probably isn't supported by any policy. Lesion (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this post intended to be a reply to my question? If so, you seem to have misunderstood what I'm asking. It was suggested above that 'pornography-induced erectile dysfunction' was notable as a specific type of 'cultural thing' - an internet meme. For this so, at minimum we'd have to have a source that actually described it as such. Or if it isn't an internet meme, what sort of 'cultural thing' is it, and where are the sources that say that it is what it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your original Q, no I don't have such a source. When I mentioned a cultural phenomenon rather than a scientific, I was sort of summarizing the counter argument that had already been offered, as a comment on the recent delete "votes" which used the absence of MEDRS compliant sources as rationale. The wording I posted above (in the box) I feel is an improvement on the wording we have currently, which suggests that it is a real medical condition. I would prefer such wording if the content were to be kept and moved to the society and culture sections of the parent articles, to make absolutely clear there is no formal research and the only commentary on the supposed phenomenon is non scientific. If we keep the content, we should not describe it as more than it is, and my wording better reflects what is actually going on here. Lesion (talk) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed wording also doesn't describe it as an internet meme/cultural phenomenon, so you wouldn't need a source to explicitly state that, although I agree that would be the implication. Lesion (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the "term used by some sources" proposal, you are basing your claim to notability on WP:OR. Again, you must have a source that suggests it is a notable term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is kept, and if the sources are indeed meeting RS but not MEDRS (as suggested above a few times), then this wording is better than what we have at the moment. Lesion (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, invigorating a medical internet meme by giving it currency on WP based merely on non-medically reliable sources is contrary to Wikipedia's core encyclopedic remit. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since no sources have been found describing it as an 'internet meme', it cannot possibly be claimed that it is notable as one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My wording does not state that it is. Lesion (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then what are you suggesting the topic is notable as? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above discussion, it has been suggested that this topic meets GNG but the sources are not MEDRS compliant. The wording I used does not state that this topic is notable as something. Lesion (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some were suggesting merging this content to erectile dysfunction. I wanted to ensure that if it was merged, better wording was used. I disagree that such wording would be giving it currency when we are just stating what evidence, or in this case lack of evidence, exists. If people don't find the answer they were looking for on wikipedia, they will just go to less responsible sources. Not a particularly encyclopedic reason for wanting to keep the content. Lesion (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article purports to be about a medical topic, but fails WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to erectile dysfunction. A single paragraph based on not so reliable sources does not justify a separate article. This stub is an obvious WP:POVFORK of Erectile dysfunction#Causes. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to erectile dysfunction. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 1 August 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) 00:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Klay World: All Gone[edit]

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

Klay World itself isn't notable, and this article fails to prove why this episode of it is notable as well. Beerest355 Talk 22:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm going to take it on faith that the not-yet-premiered finale of a YouTube show that is itself not notable (see old relevant AFD) is...not-notable. In any event, completely unsourced and a quick GNews search doesn't give confidence that that's going to change. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and arguably speedy deletion as clearly non-notable web content. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete or Userfy. While it is arguable that that the Klay World series has a certain notability, the as-yet-unreleased series finale fails WP:NFF. Allow back only if/when the topic meets the applicable notability criteria. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 27 July 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) 16:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adityaram[edit]

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

Part of a PR campaign for the individual and his group of companies by a sockmaster and his/her puppets. Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement Fiddle Faddle 22:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Indeed part of a spam-campaign with several other articles and images nominated for deletion. The Banner talk 09:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional content, appears to be living person with no references other than its own company website. — kikichugirl ^inquire 04:41, 29 July 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 withdrawn and merged. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto Citizenship Fund[edit]

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

Has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Notability is not inherited from the famous parent company. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Hirolovesswords (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Monsanto#Political contributions and lobbying. This can probably just be included in the main article's section on political contributions rather than be a content fork here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with the merge. Have done this. About notability. there are many many federal sources on the PAC, it has many many mentions. I dont agree. I would appreciate a real discussion with User:Hirolovesswords, this user just ignores my attempts to start a dicussion and rolls back or trys to delete my work.

Withdrawn As there is no longer a page to delete, no longer a need for an AfD discussion. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 20:20, 22 July 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 July 22. Snotbot t • c » 22:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mika Nagano[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights so fails WP:NMMA. I don't read Japanese, but the coverage looks routine.Mdtemp (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just opened up a vote on WT:MMANOT to make Jewels a top-tier WMMA organization. I would suggest delaying any related deletions until that discussion has had time to develop. Luchuslu (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the discussion at WT:MMANOT and the new criteria it generated, I wish to withdraw my nomination of this article.Mdtemp (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject appears to meet new criteria and the nominator has asked to withdraw his AfD nomination. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 27 July 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 do not retain as standalone articles. Whether, what, and where to merge is an editorial decision. For the moment, the listed articles will be redirected to Allwinner Technology, with history left intact for any editors interested in performing a merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allwinner A10[edit]

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

Per WP:COMPANY, specifically WP:PRODUCT, this article does not have notability on its own. It is just listing specifications of the product and does not prove notability. User226 (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issue regarding WP:PRODUCT. Most appear to have been created by the same user and are all products of the Allwinner company. :

User226 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A similar article was deleted and discussed here for the same reasons: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allwinner_A31s

Article Allwinner_A20 was created by User:Sudozero. The rest appear to have all be created by User:PersephoneII.

Also, AllWinner_A1X Seems to suffer the same issues, but I am not sure if it could be expanded as a family and become notable. It may be best to take this one to AFD by itself. User226 (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"it's not notable, gotta keep it clean! clean out that hash table!" <- your argument. i'm not sure how wikipedia is hurt by having this information. is there somewhere we can consolidate this information? -- Sudozero (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if that was too harsh. i'm just frustrated with the common wikipedia culture of deleting information, because someone thinks it's "not noteable," whatever that means. last time i checked the information was useful to me. -- Sudozero (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:COMPANY, product information can be under the main company's article. A product should only have its own page if the product, in itself, is notable. A product does not inherit notability from the parent company. User226 (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging any relevant data into the company article. —Geoff Capp (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting an article after merging content would break the attribution of the content to its authors, see WP:MERGE: "Merging—regardless of the amount of information kept—should always leave a redirect (or, in some cases, a disambiguation page) in place." 109.76.180.21 (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Allwinner chipsets - I can agree that the individual SoCs aren't notable on teir own, but would it be feasible if they're merged into a list rather than just dump them into the main article? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge These items are significant, since they are used in millions of low-powered devices. Furthermore, the A10 is something of a first in the free software community, since it can run with fully-free (non-proprietary) software (including userspace, kernel, bootloader, "bios"/u-boot, and no need for microcode). this little chip may be meaningless to you, but it is hardly meaningless to me. 1 -- Sudozero (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Allwinner SoCs - the SoCs themselves aren't notable, but it's worth keeping the information. We should merge the information under one page and break it up into two tables (one for the A-family and one for the F-family). Look to the Exynos (system on chip) article for inspiration. Tapped-out (talk) 17:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Allwinner Technology or create a list. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a user who visits this information frequently and does embedded development. If the information was under Allwinner SOCs or something it would be good, I would just hate to see the information be deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.25.42 (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- [WP:ITUSEFUL]] is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the table in Allwinner Technology seems enough to have in an encyclopedia. Details for any specific product should be available from the vendor; not Wikipedia's job to supply data sheets. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to one general page. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 3 August 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) 16:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SuperStock[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable, generic stock image provider, failing WP:GNG and WP:ORG, due to the lack of reliable, independent sources covering the company in depth. Tagged as failing GNG since October 2012. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. They were mentioned as part of a21's bankruptcy here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to World Baseball Classic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2017 World Baseball Classic[edit]

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

Pure speculation. By all accounts on google, the setup for the 2017 WBC is still to be determined. See https://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/2013/03/mlb-officials-terms-for-2017-world-baseball-classic-qualifying-not-set-yet/

Without any sources to the contrary, this is pure speculation at best. Smartyllama (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. I'm going to say keep on this one because the WBC is scheduled to be played next in 2017 so it makes sense to have an article for it, just like we have one for the 2016 Summer Olympics and other upcoming competitions. I'd agree that the qualification article is premature though. Spanneraol (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to the 2013 article We are here to build an encyclopedia, not write throwaway articles in future tense in Wikipedia's voice. Unscintillating (talk) 01:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is created too soon.L smll 07:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WBC is the highest-level baseball tournament in the world and the 2017 event has already been announced. There's no sense in deleting this page and requiring someone to recreate it later. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 05:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Baseball Classic. It's too early for its own article. (Similarly, today I just redirected 2014 Major League Baseball Draft to Major League Baseball Draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Delete or Redirect it is too soon if the venue and format are not know/sourced to reliable sources. No bar on re-creation (with out silly flags as per WP:INFOBOXFLAG) when all of this is known. LGA _talk^edits 00:21, 29 July 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. No prejudice towards redirection Mark Arsten (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2017 World Baseball Classic – Qualification[edit]

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

No sources, pure speculation. The second way seems to acknowledge it's speculating about one possible way to set it up. By all accounts, qualification procedures have not been determined yet. Smartyllama (talk) 19:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too early for this. Spanneraol (talk) 18:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above.It's WP:TOOSOON.L smll 07:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Baseball Classic. It's too early for its own article. (Similarly, today I just redirected 2014 Major League Baseball Draft to Major League Baseball Draft. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:38, 28 July 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 speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOTI Inc.[edit]

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

A Google News archive search fails to reveal, to me anyway, notable coverage in WP:RS that are not simply reprinted company press releases in various trades, per WP:CORPDEPTH. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thanks for your review of the SOTI Inc. page I've created.

I have tried to keep the content very factual and non-promotional, as my goal is not to create an advertisement on Wikipedia, but instead a basic company page. Could you let me know what you saw as advertorial? I will revise it immediately.

Today (7/9), I edited the content to remove what another user pointed out may sound promotional. I hope this assists keeping the page up.

I have tried following the same format as similar companies on the site: MobileIron and AirWatch.

Regarding significant articles, I want to provide the below coverage of SOTI from well respected journalists and publications. These articles are not reprinted press releases, and have editors tied to them.

The references in the page itself are not reprints of a press release. The InformationWeek piece is authored by a well respected journalist: Larry Seltzer

In addition, SOTI was the top scorer in a Network World review of Mobile Device Management vendors, available here: Network World - Top tools for BYOD management

I'd like to provide additional editorial features on the company and its solutions:

InformationWeek Education - Smartphones Hit Schools, MDM Vendors Don Thinking Caps

CMSwire - SOTI Releases MobiControl V10 to Manage Personal Devices in the Enterprise

eWeek - Soti Unveils MDM Platform MobiControl V10

Mobile Fanpage - Italian review of SOTI solution

Computing Canada - Last Year, We All Talked About a BYOD Problem, It's Time That We Acknowledge That Our Biggest Mobile Problems Are Now Under Control

InformationWeek BYTE - BYOD Tablets, Smartphones: About To 'Disrupt' The Classroom?

THE Journal - Westbury School District Deploys Mobile Device Management System

As time goes on, I'd like to expand the page to include more products, awards won, and additional information- but I wanted to start with a simple upload first.

I'd appreciate any help you can provide. Thank you!

Msalmassian (talk) 23:43, 9 July 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) 17:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Makes no claim to notability, and therefore has none. —Geoff Capp (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and salt. This is the third time someone has tried creating an article about the subject.[9] If a non-Wikipedian wants to create it again, they should read the summary of our inclusion requirements, then ask at the WP:Help desk whether the available sources meet our requirements, then go to AfC if they meet them. By the way, I also tagged the article for speedy deletion: G11: unambiguous advertising or promotion, and User:DGG deleted it last night. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) Unforgettableid (talk) 16:43, 23 July 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. Wizardman 17:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy (webseries)[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable web series for which there do not seem to be any reliable, independent sources. A7 speedy deletion was declined twice. The subject fails both criteria of WP:NWEB. The only claim of significance seems to be the unsourced claim that the web series is "from the executive producers of The Vampire Diaries. The subject may be suitable for a summary list entry at List of works based on Peter Pan. - Mr X 18:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs improvement and better sourcing but I am finding substantial coverage as here and here. This is a notable web series that's been covered substantially in reliable sources. It was funded by Macy's and includes notable actors and producers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The problem with the sources I'm finding is that almost all of them talk about the show launching. In other words, 90% of the sources that go into any true depth about the show all say the same thing: that this is going to launch. Most of them say the same things, which usually mean that the articles are all based on the same press release/materials sent to them. After its launch the mentions are pretty much just WP:TRIVIAL in nature. Even though sources such as this, this, and this might be in places that would be usable, but the coverage is so short and minimal that I really can't consider it to be anything other than trivial. I really want to keep this, but there just isn't enough out there to show that this had a true depth of coverage. Considering that it did have notable people involved with it (and keep in mind that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED), it's actually surprising how little notice this ultimately got. If someone could find a good review in a reliable source, I'd be willing to argue the point a little more, but this is just far, far too light to really pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the coverage is very substantial, as it is in the Variety piece and TV guide article, and the program is an innovative marketing ploy, and includes very notable celebrities, does it matter that there isn't a lot of coverage after the show's launch? I'm not clear on how this reflects policy. It was notable, but then wasn't because it wasn't covered after it was shown? Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about notability and coverage is that being considered different or having notable persons in it doesn't mean anything. For example, William DeFoe recently started doing something pretty cool recently where he and a few others picked some random no-name student directors in a contest and starred in their films. This is both interesting and unusual, but these shorts never gained any actual coverage to where they'd merit a mention. The same thing applies here. Now when it comes to coverage before the event, sometimes a lot of coverage can give notability even if the actual subject matter doesn't gain notice after the fact. However in these events the coverage shouldn't be articles that just say the same thing over and over again. When this happens (as is the case here) this means that the people reporting on the event received the same publicity/press release from the company and wrote an article based on that. If you could find just one or two actual reviews of the series that are in-depth and reliable, I'd be willing to change my vote. The problem here is that this webseries never really gained that much attention. We don't expect smaller webseries to get the attention of a big blockbuster movie, but we do need more than a handful of sources that say the same thing and trivial sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:42, 8 July 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) 17:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article notability is the fact why I believe this article should be deleted, it has no specific guideline criteria, but being a webseries I could apply both WP:MOVIE and WP:WEB whereas it fails both and the also fails WP:GNG, first of all, for web content sources and references must not be trivial, also notability is not inherited, just because any famous actor or actress was a part of it, it doesn't necessarily mean the subject is instantly notable. Also it fails WP:MOVIE because it fails if not all, many of criteria established within WP:MOVIE#Other evidence of notability. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:55, 29 July 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) 00:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderful Media[edit]

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

Article primarily serves to promote the organization and its product. The notability is questionable because most of the citations are from companies named in the article as "partners" or "backers", the rest are press releases. Nfwin (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep : I did a little cleanup on the page to align it with Wikipedia's editing guidelines. I think the company's going to keep polluting it for its PR/SEO purposes, but beyond just that, the startup is admissible, just like a lot of others that exist on Wikipedia... --Rubyface (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Why is Wanderful admissible? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP. Aside from a couple of stories at TechCrunch, all I could find was press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 15 July 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) 17:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. Like the nominator said: "Article primarily serves to promote the organization and its product." Plus, I skimmed both TechCrunch articles. Both look like they might well be press-release churnalism instead of true journalism. I'm not convinced that the article meets WP:GNG. (Dear non-Wikipedians: Please see the GNG summary.) If someone finds better sources in the future, they can present the sources to the closing admin and request undeletion. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:59, 23 July 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) 21:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TSB Ravensburg[edit]

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

No indication of notability. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Only references given are either not independent or directory type entries. noq (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change the emphasis. a quick google shows that TSB ravensburg is probably notable as a sporting group, just not as a rugby club. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:35, 8 July 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) 17:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An amateur team that played in a regional league on the lowest or second lowest level. On their web site following Abteilungen/Rugby/Spieltermine is a statement Wir spielen momentan in keiner Liga! Translation is Currently we are not playing in any league! --Ben Ben (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject is not notable failing specific notability criteria. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 19:56, 29 July 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) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Haga[edit]

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

MMA fighter with no top tier fights, a terrible record, and just WP:RUNOFTHEMILL sports coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - I just opened up a vote on WT:MMANOT to make Jewels a top-tier WMMA organization. I would suggest delaying any related deletions until that discussion has had time to develop. Luchuslu (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the discussion seems to be against full top-tier status, and since Haga meets no other notability criteria. While the article has many references, most are just fight announcements/results or blog postings. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 12:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:23, 27 July 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) 16:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Punch[edit]

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

A non-notable EP that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. The article literally consists of 3 tracks, a small infobox, and nothing else. No prose whatsoever, not even a track length or a reference. The only reliable source a Google search turns up is a mention on AllMusic, but even they don't have a review on it - or even the album art. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. Nothing more to add. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 27 July 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) 16:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lorraine Cink[edit]

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

Actress known only for her YouTube videos; doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG (or WP:GNGACTOR). BLP prod removed by author upon addition of a link to Cink's website. I'd go speedy-A7, but that just seems a bit too brusque... Ignatz mice•talk 14:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although she's not notable as an actor, she could become notable in the future. That having been said, being up and coming, or a member of Equity are reasons to delete, not to keep. So: delete subject to later re-creation. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 27 July 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) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Sørloth[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. I would add that playing in the qualifying of either of the European club competitions does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:41, 24 July 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) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transnational India-Nepal-Bhutan Upper Himalaya Railway[edit]

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

Crystal boll. Not even a survey or feasibility study is done. The Banner talk 22:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A proposal at this stage. The article provides a lot of detail that does not appear in any sources. Much of the referencing does not appear to be about this specific proposal, and the material that is about this proposal is essentially that some sort of project is being contemplated. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 10 July 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, Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 04:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Far too much WP:CRYSTAL. My view is that a project like this should not have an article until there is a project which a government (or company) clearly intends to fund. Since this is an interational project, a treaty will be needed, presumably. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It has only been proposed. WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 01:05, 24 July 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) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Advice Interactive Group[edit]

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

Small non-notable company. PR sources. "fastest growing" is a polite synonym for not yet notable. For a very small business to be fastest growing in terms of percent may be a trivial amount of sales. DGG ( talk ) 01:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG, the company does not meet criteria to establish its own article within WP. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 01:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - My, they do put out a lot of press releases, but no coverage in reliable sources. - 15:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

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 Userfy. Article is now at User:Sandstein/Ava's Demon Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ava's Demon[edit]

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

I came across this via the webcomic list and a look shows that while this is a beautiful webcomic done by someone that's obviously very, very talented, this is just WP:TOOSOON for an article. The webcomic hasn't received any actual in-depth coverage except for one review by i09 and we need far more than one review to pass notability guidelines. There are a few trivial mentions and some non-usable sources, but by large this series just hasn't really been out long enough to gain any coverage. It might in the future, but we can't keep articles based on the idea that they might one day become notable. (WP:CRYSTAL) For every one webcomic that gains enough coverage to get an article, there are at least 20 others that are just as good that never get to that point. It fails WP:WEB pretty solidly. Speedy declined because of the single review. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as creator, else userfy. Per WP:GNG, "the number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected." In this case, I submit that the one existing reliable source narrowly suffices to write a reasonably comprehensive and verifiable stub article, which is the point of the notability guideline. Sandstein 20:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to showing notability, one source is almost always never enough to keep an article. The only times one source is enough is when the source is asserting something that's so overwhelmingly notable (such as winning an Eisner) that it'd be kept on that basis alone. The problem with only having one source is that we have no way of knowing if it'd ever gain more coverage. You could argue that one review is enough, but then most things up for AfD have at least one source. By that rationale over 90% of the things up for AfD would have to be kept. There's a reason that the notability guidelines in general have become more and more strict over time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, You said it perfectly. Unless this becomes notable, I see no reason to keep it.Coteup (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC) — Coteup (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Userfy as requested by creator the article. There is insufficient coverage at this point to establish notability, but there is reasonable grounds to believe it may be notable in the future given one substantial reliable source exists and the kickstarter success may allow for publication. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it being userfied. It's just not notable enough for the mainspace, is all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Danny_Choo_%282nd_nomination%29 where it was held that one story on CNN is not to establish notability. Kristalyamaki (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until notability is established. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:22, 2 August 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) 17:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rasi Caprice[edit]

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

Musician does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:55, 15 July 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 July 15. Snotbot t • c » 06:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 16 July 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) 18:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - winning one minor award is not a reason to keep, neither is being up and coming. Bearian (talk) 16:21, 27 July 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) 17:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide Express[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

promotional article; trivial awards DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per its previous outcome, the article was recreated and it seems that it contains the same problems and content, the company fails to meet GNG and fails to meet its specific guideline WP:CORP, more than its existence must be shown in order for it to be maintained within Wikipedia. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - IMHO a company of a substantial employment size (570 employees on LinkedIn alone) and revenue ($500mm claimed) is likely notable, and should have some sort of article on WP. Obviously this opens Pandora's box for their marketing department. Their common-word name makes researching the editorial coverage difficult, but there certainly is some (Reuters, BusinessInsider, the BusinessWeek listing). I was unaware of the 2010 AFD, and did the initial review when this article was re-added in late 2012. I cut back much of the hyperbole, which the marketing flacks have not challenged (not that there is none now). As such, I'm inclined to let it live, perhaps with some pruning. DGG was quite right to nix the CEO's article.--Nixie9✉ 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per nom, Seems more promotional than anything. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:39, 16 July 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) 18:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but tag -- If the turnover is correct, this is certainly a notable company. The fact that the article is a poor one implies improvement, not deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, trivial awards and mentions don't pass WP:CORP. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dennis Brown. GregJackP Boomer! 15:28, 29 July 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 Procedural close. Article was double-nominated. Current nomination here (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email jamming[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

completing nomination for IP nominator. My post should not be counted as a !vote. Nominator did not provide reason, so they better comment below. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 22 July 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 July 22. Snotbot t • c » 17:47, 22 July 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) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email jamming[edit]

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

Completing nomination for 109.176.196.50: No evidence that this is a popular or notable thing to do, ref is nothing to do with "E-mail jamming". I can confirm this: there don't seem to be any sources out there that use the term in this sense. Hut 8.5 16:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a quasi-neologism. BBC News piece in article does not mention subject, and as the nominator mentions, does not describe anything in the article. This completely unreliable source is the only place I can find mention of this topic, and no books on activism or politics seem to mention this practice. Is this concept called something else, perhaps? I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this sounds like a combination of spamming, hacking, and denial of service attack. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a possible merge of any useful contents to Emacs. The Emacs editor has had a "mail amusements" function "M-x spook" for years, which would automatically insert loaded words to a message being composed, with the intention described above. I don't believe this was ever referred to as "email jamming", however.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Another person trying to coin their own term? W Nowicki (talk) 17:13, 23 July 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 already deleted as CSD:G11 (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adityaram Properties[edit]

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

Copy and past, including banners, from somewhere else. Part of an advertising campaign for Adityaram. Advertising. The Banner talk 13:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly as CSD G11? The one claim to notability that I can see here is the idea that 1994 to mid-2013 is "two decades" (a claim I have now removed as it was a WP:COPYVIO text copied from their website). Basically an advertising picture gallery. AllyD (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be a recreation by a sockpuppet/sockpuppet-suspect. (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sravan7) That explains the tag placed months before the article was created. The Banner talk 20:37, 22 July 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) 20:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open pop star[edit]

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

Neologism coined by the neoism movement. No evidence that anyone else uses it. At best it could be made a redirect to neoism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:27, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, No evidence to suggest anyone even uses it. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:12, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Neoism. The articles are really about the same thing and contain the same information. Borock (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it feels odd calling this a neologism if it's several decades old, but it's clearly not a term or concept that ever took off or got any use outside its creator and arguably their direct associates. Pretty much a pretentious flavour of WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:57, 22 July 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) 02:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Gafaiti[edit]

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

Non notable footballer. Has yet to make a professional appearance for any team. Dweller (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The only evidcne provided is that he plays for an under-21 team. Until regualrly in the club's first team he will remain NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon Productions[edit]

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

Unsourced document, unclear that the article is factual. TRL (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added several references, including two concerning a court case over one of their documentary films. (I also notice that there were already other references concerning that case already on this page.) These address the nominator's rationale concerning sourcing and fact, neither of which is normally an AfD consideration. As to notability - which is - I am as yet undecided as to whether filmmaker and legal defendent status in themselves constitute notability. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. I have added to the article half a dozen references from mainstream newspapers. Four of their films are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles, and one won a notable award. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with grateful thanks to both AllyD and MelanieN for their efforts to serve the project. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. I also don't see any indication that WP:BEFORE was followed. SL93 (talk) 01:02, 24 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High School Honors Science Program[edit]

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

Program doesn't appear to be notable. Although notable organizations and companies are involved, notability is not inherited. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's a small program at a single university. Not conceivably worth an article, or even a redirect. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like most school programs, this is non-notable per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 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 Nomination withdrawn because at wrong venue. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 03:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Turn-taking[edit]

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

Per WP:LOWERCASE, the article should be at Turn-taking. The uppercase Turn-Taking can redirect there. Cnilep (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I screwed up using Twinkle. This is meant to be an RfD, not an AfD. Nomination is withdrawn. Cnilep (talk) 02:26, 22 July 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. Participants have expressed some doubts over whether the sourcing is sufficient or not to pass notability guidelines, but overall the consensus seems to be for deletion. Some of the possible sources that Schmidt was looking for have not been presented. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Well, after a successful deletion by a retired user, it appears that this article is back again since July 2012. Sadly, it still appears to suck at meeting Wikipedia: Notability (films), because there is no cult following or independent coverage I could find on this film, nor is the reception of this film any reliable, or if even being reviewed by the Angry Video Game Nerd is significant enough. If there happens to be any independent sources about Ricky 1 that are enough for this article to be here, I'll be happy to withdraw if I find out about it. However, as it stands, I think it's unlikely that finding an independent source will happen. Sorry William T. Naud. EditorE (talk) 13:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per these sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also found this. I could withdraw this, but I'll keep the discussion going if this article should still be here or not, or if more sources come up. EditorE (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found this source. EditorE (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Just as I opined at the last AFD, and even after taking some measures to improve the article, I feel this one does not have the requisite critical review, analysis, or commentary to meet WP:NF. It might be argued that it is perhaps "best known" for being a really bad film parody, but even being such a baqd film, it failed to recive much commentary... though the VHS box cover claims it received coverage and review by Hollywood Reporter and London Times,(as "claimed" on cover-shot seen 55 seconds into this CineMassacre review) I have been unable to find any such reviews. "Should" they exist and be brought forward, my delete would become a "weak keep". The entire film is available on Youtube,[10] and yes... it's a true stinkard. I went there to see the full film credits missing from IMDB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if your still in touch with William T. Naud after doing a family film with him a few years ago, ask him if he was ever interviewed about the film or if he saw any reviews of the film. EditorE (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Being shot on a set constructed at Cheyenne Studios in Castaic, the film Young Davey Crockett was stillborn. Naud fired his directors, took over the project himself, and then failed to pay his actors. And no... I lost touch with that unfinished production years ago. Here's an on-set image of me as a colonial barrister.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And digging through old emails, I found the address of my production contact, and wrote her. No response. But I did find that Young Davy Crockett is not quite as dead as I thought. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 00:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Even bad movie can be notable, but in this case, it does not seems to have attracted much attention. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TOW talk 01:55, 22 July 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) 16:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fokker machine gun[edit]

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

Another gun article based entirely on a patent. The patent itself is a WP:PRIMARY source from the WP:GNG perspective. Despite the famous name dropped in this article, I wasn't able find any confirmation that this particular patent was actually used in a machine gun. Its appearance in a long list of machine gun patents in a US gov work (by Chinn) does not make it sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. I note the article says it was "manufactured", but there is no evidence it actually was. Ansh666 03:57, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per below, I guess a redirect after deletion could be useful, to Fokker or interrupter gear or something. Ansh666 21:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - I did some searching through various sources, and while there are a lot of hits, they are mostly discussing Fokker-Leimberger and Interrupter gear#Fokker's synchronizer. It appears that not only does this gun fail GNG (for instance, the article doesn't even tell us when this gun was designed - it could have been 1913 or 1996, unless you click through the sources), it also appears that the article would best be suited as a redirect to Fokker. Cdtew (talk) 15:02, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and redirect to Interrupter gear. There is no credible information that this gun was ever made. All internet searches led to Wiki, Wiki-mirrors or to the Fokker's Interrupter gear.--RAF910 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody can at least come up with firm evidence that Fokker ever manufactured their own gun. There seems to be no direct relationship to the Fokker interrupter gear, developed for other manufacturers' weapons, and presumably it would simply have shared the same system. Cdtew comments above about vagueness over the date of the design, and I note that the original German patent was filed in February 1918. That and the fact that the patent was for application to a crank operated machine guns points to this being part of development work during WWI for Fokker to produce their own gun for use on their aircraft, but there is nothing directly in the patent to confirm that. Even if such sources could be found, it would need another step to show notability. This is one of number of related articles in which the editor tests our trust in his good faith; the source given does not support the article which contains statements that either come from a source unknown to others or are simply made up. --AJHingston (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I don't see any direct relationship with the interrupter gear myself. This is a design for a breech block that uses a rotary mechanism to close and open the breech. Apparently the gist of it was that "The arrangement is such that the locking levers are subjected only to a compression and not to a bending stress". Presumably this would have improved reliability. Maybe it was intended to be used together with a simpler external synchronizer via the crank somehow, e.g. having the gun fired by motion obtained from the engine/propeller much like a chain gun, but the one-page patent text doesn't say anything about that. The patent says nothing about what was supposed to power the crank. I think it was part of the not-well-known experimentation that Fokker put into designing his own aviation guns, like the Fokker-Leimberger, but this patent is certainly not for a gatling. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The source cited in the F-L article does mention that Fokker and Luebbe "produced several designs. One had a direct drive by a crank of an otherwise normal Maxim-gun mechanism." The patten from this wiki article is however not exactly for that but advanced its own breech design. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:46, 23 July 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 already deleted as CSD:G11/G12 (non-admin closure). Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Ismail[edit]

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

Per WP:NMUSIC. See the history of the article. Ben Ben (talk) 00:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 22 July 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) 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to psychology[edit]

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

This has no refs and a google search comes up with nothing. It doesn't appear to be a proper fallacy, just a type of ad hominem with a shiny name that someone made up. Insulam Simia (^talk/_contribs) 20:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be the creator's own philosophy; it appears that the term is an informal fallacy in itself. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search for this term appearing in textbooks and other discussions of topics in logic; however, it seems to appear incidentally, not as a formal fallacy itself (see [11], [12], [13], [14]). As it seems unlikely to be a formalized term, it can have no significant coverage. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:32, 22 July 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) 20:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relay Ventures[edit]

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

Every source in this promotional article for this non notable venture capital firm is either a press release or a mere mention they have invested some small amount of money for some firm. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The company has a few news sources, but on closer inspection, they all refer to the company being renamed from ATP Capital, getting a new CEO, or otherwise trivial passing mentions. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lists what the firm does, with references to where it has made these investments (which is presumably why it passed AfC), but neither these nor the firm's name change provide evidence of actual notability. AllyD (talk) 06:25, 22 July 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) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolaos Marinakis[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. also has no page on greek wikipedia => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:46, 24 July 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) 20:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky Boiz[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I can only find one article about them, but that article has issues that are somewhat notable. With only a few other items they would pass GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:31, 22 July 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 July 22. Snotbot t • c » 00:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - existing coverage appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, at least for now. Gong show 18:58, 23 July 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) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adonnis[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 23:57, 21 July 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 July 22. Snotbot t • c » 00:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. The article only says he has acted in one episode of a TV show and has one song available online. Borock (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails every criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:CREATIVE. Come back when (and if) this nonentity genuinely achieves something. Ravenswing 03:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly CSD A7?) No evidence of attained notability whether as musician or actor. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable in multiple different categories. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:10, 22 July 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) 16:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too Sketchy[edit]

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

Contested PROD, and I would call this a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL, but I can't even find evidence to confirm verifiability of this game. Searching for the developer's website leads to various social media pages, none of which appear to mention the game. Even if the game is really in development, the "TBA 2015" is a dead giveaway that this game doesn't need an article right now. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...upcoming... is launching sometime around 2015. Per WP:CRYSTAL. --Ben Ben (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2015 on a console with an unsure future? Very WP:CRYSTAL. Nate • (chatter) 01:11, 22 July 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) 01:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The future of this game is presently in question, due to its scheduled release in 2015. In addition, there have been no official announcements regarding the game mode itself, reliant on rumors mostly. This makes Too Sketchy a pretty clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. TBrandley (T • C • B) 02:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and all above. Ansh666 03:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a borderline hoax. SPA-created article about a game with no clear release date. It appears that the article itself is too sketchy (sorry, I couldn't resist). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 05:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to make that joke myself! Ansh666 05:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Erpert beat me to the joke about the article being too sketchy, but that's the idea. Nothing comes up in a search, and anything two years away on a platform that was released to the general public under a month ago is very crystalline. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:08, 22 July 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.