< 2 July	4 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. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postnikov assault rifle[edit]

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

Most of this article is unverifiable. The Russian sources on project Abakan only mention this gun in the briefest way possible as just another entry in the Abakan contest, just to say it was withdrawn for reliability problems; no picture is provided in those sources. Not even the (presumably interesting) fact that it used API is mentioned in said sources. The only source where that information might come from is the slide of unknown origin posted by werewolf0001 on his livejournal. The text in the slide image there is too blurry for me to read; it seems to fall below the WP:GNG threshold anyway. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:27, 3 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) 22:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the creator of this page was likely [1] a sock-puppet account from a group that has put out a lot of problematic content on firearms; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ctway/Archive. The sources these accounts cite don't always verify the material. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Someone not using his real name (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've done some quick lookup and I agree - most of the resources that briefly mention it are either blogs or forum posts. No reliable and easily verifiable sources exist so in its current form the article is absolutely useless and highly unlikely to be improved. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the same article was deleted once before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/APT assault rifle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with above...article has already been deleted once before. What little information available is questionable at best and apparently comes from the already deleted article.--RAF910 (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This article as many have said has been deleted before and was added by a past vandal and annoyance to the community. Newsjunky12 (Talk) 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Proud member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - it's been deleted before, and under a more accurate title, too. Ansh666 06:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By sheer luck and after finding the enlarged version, I've managed to identify the blurry text from that (2nd) slide [2] as being a 100% copy of the sole paragraph about this gun from the book История русского автомата (History of the Russian assault rifle) by С. Б. Монетчиков (p. 190):

Одним из наиболее экзотичных и конструктивно сложных являлся автомат Постникова АПТ (практически сразу снятый с полигонных испытаний), в котором автоматика работала по принципу отвода пороховых газов из канала ствола через затравочные отверстия капсюля патрона. Однако в отличие от исследований В.Г. Федорова и А.А. Благонравова, утверждавших, что для этого нужен специальный патрон с утолщенным дном. И.К. Постникову удалось реализовать подобную схему на штатном 5,45-мм патроне. При выстреле давление пороховых газов через капсюль воздействовало на ударник, двигавшийся назад, тем самым отпирая затвор.

That's basically all that is publicly known about how this gun worked. Монетчиков doesn't say much else about this gun; although it says on the previous page (189) that the gun was one of 12 entered into the August 1984 Abakan trials, it doesn't say how it fared in the contest. On the other hand, the article "У Истоков «Абакана»", from Ружьё. Оружие и амуниция, 1998/1, which is kindly pirated/copied here, while not giving any details about the functioning of the APT gun, says that Postnikov's design was entered into the preliminary trials of August-November 1984, but basically the first to be withdrawn for reliability problems (p. 7). (In the same sentence that article says that another design, TKB-0111, was considered the least promising [of the rest], and was switched to "optional" financing contract status). I think this amount of information can be safely covered in Project Abakan, where the gun was already mentioned, albeit some details were wrong [3]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. the new info provided the not meet Wiki reference standards and must be verified and translated accordingly. Also, even if it did, a one of a kind prototype does not merit its own Wiki page. And, as suggested above is aready included on the Project Abakan page.--RAF910 (talk) 22:00, 6 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:Bbb23 under criterion G3 (vandalism). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Keith[edit]

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

Pure nonsense created by Amon and sock. CSD removed by socka dn author. reddogsix (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per A7 among other problems, such as the obvious glorified autobiography by the author, who is a probable sock. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:53, 3 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 no consensus. postdlf (talk) 04:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daewoo Express[edit]

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

While there are mentions of this company, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH and ultimately WP:GNG as there is not WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Most of the mentions are also from press releases. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment I declined a speedy A7 on it, but I'm not sure one way or another about notability. The requirements to pass pseedy are much less demanding that to meet WP:N. DGG ( talk ) 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First gnews hit: a 450-word article in a foreign newspaper, exclusively about this company [4]. Here ~~are a couple of paragraphs~~is a mention in a Pakistani national newspaper [5]; here's a paragraph from the New York Times [6]. I hazard that there are plenty of sources in Urdu, too: this does seem to be quite a significant company in Pakistan. Dricherby (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC) Corrected Dricherby (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The first link talks about the company, but primarily focuses on the parent company that was once in Korea. This could be considered a references towards notability but it does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion as depth of coverage states "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." Also, the 2nd link is 1 sentence that states "However, Premier Bus Service and Daewoo Express had set a new trend in the transport sector by hiring educated staff so that people especially women could feel safe while travelling." This is hardly significant coverage as it is a one-liner and cannot be used towards WP:GNG. The 3rd may be from the New York Times, but it simply states that their buses are painted a different color than traditional buses in Pakistan. Not sure that these would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Would be happy to withdraw the nomination if you can find WP:SIGCOV. Unfortunately, I have been unable to do so. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I'd misread the second link, thinking that the whole of the last two paragraphs was about Daewoo Bus. But I disagree about the Korean source: other than a brief mention of the parent group towards the top of the article, almost the whole of the rest is about the Pakistani bus company. I also disagree about the third source: it does not "simply state that their busses are painted a different colour". It also says that their pricing is aimed at the middle-class market and that, in contrast to other bus companies, it has air-conditioned buses that run on time. Dricherby (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conceding that the 1st source would go towards notability, how would the 3rd source meet WP:CORPDEPTH? I guess I am just not seeing how the two references we are talking about would amount to WP:SIGCOV. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agreed with Dricherby. Quite notable article and it should be kept. Fai zan 07:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any sources in Urdu that might cement notability? Just agreeing with other contributors at AfD doesn't carry a lot of weight. Dricherby (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about agreeing without an argument about why. I am the nominator but would be happy to withdraw such if there are references that can be presented that show WP:CORPDEPTH. I am willing to bet there is something in a language other than English which would be acceptable to support WP:GNG if someone is willing to find them. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how much weight your agreement with me about Faizan's agreement with me carries. :-D Dricherby (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely none. Pointing out to Faizan that this is a consensus, note a vote count. Also, I am the type of person who will change my vote if there is an argument that persuades me, but simply stating that it is notable without providing a reason doesn't carry much weight in a deletion discussion. At this point, the only reference that I feel would go towards notability is the first one you mentioned. I would love to see additional, even if they are in a foreign language. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 18:46, 22 June 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) 18:52, 26 June 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) 20:35, 3 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 no consensus. L Faraone 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qantas Credit Union[edit]

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

I don't feel like I can CSD, but it does seem to satisfy G11… I've taken the middle road.

Specifically:

Three sections use the first person, one of them using the second person and ending with an exclamation point (not appropriate for an encyclopedia), another section consists of >50% external links to the company website, the lead section uses the absolute comparative, all external links are to the company website, and there are no references.

When stated in these terms, there is no doubt of promotion. Fixing these problems would require a fundamental rewrite. T3h 1337 b0y 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite or simply revert to an older version. The entry dates to 2008 and less spammy versions (such as this one) exist. Hairhorn (talk) 19:25, 20 June 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) 18:53, 26 June 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) 20:34, 3 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 no consensus. L Faraone 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Rush (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 20:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 June 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) 18:50, 26 June 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) 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to I Can Make a Mess Like Nobody's Business, as a Bing search turns up little more than lyrics for the song sharing its name with the title. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:56, 3 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. L Faraone 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FreeVMS[edit]

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

Fledgling hobby OS; notability not established. The mailing list carries some traffic and there are some blog posts about it here and there, but no reliable sources that I could find. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of the web sites is dated from 1998, one 2009 and the other stops in 2010. Clearly any assertions about the future are not appropriate. Perhaps worth one sentence in the OpenVMS article with citations to the web sites for historical value. W Nowicki (talk) 16:20, 20 June 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) 18:46, 26 June 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) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable software. A search did not turn up any reliable-source coverage of this software. Refs provided are not RS and do not establish notability.Dialectric (talk) 12:03, 8 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 no consensus. L Faraone 01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broken as Things Are[edit]

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

The article says that book is critically claimed, but I can't find any significant coverage. The reviews that I could find were from unreliable websites. The author is of dubious notability and has no article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The original status of this article was atrocious, but I've cleaned it up considerably and found some sources. Most of the links on the article are trades, true, but there's one newspaper review in there and then there's this newspaper article where the Google News search asserts has a review for the book as well. I can't verify it through the snippet that this link shows when I actually click on it, so if someone can verify this and then link it to the article, I'd be much obliged. The second newspaper article would definitely push it to a stronger keep for me if it does contain a review. In any case this just barely and I mean barely skims the notability guidelines of WP:NBOOK. If it was just the trades I'd have voted for a weak delete. I'll probably still try to see if there's merit in creating an article for the author and redirecting there if all else fails. If it does get deleted, I'm willing to userfy a copy to hold on to and work on with the intent of potentially creating an article for the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:46, 20 June 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, czar · · 17:15, 26 June 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) 20:28, 3 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 no consensus. L Faraone 01:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heroes and Villains Entertainment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a company without significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The previous AFD closed a year ago as no consensus with very little participation. Since then, there has been no edits aside from one bot edit. I searched for coverage in the intervening year and the situation is the same as it was a year ago so here we are again. Whpq (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Top Cow. Looking for coverage of either one brings coverage that includes the other.[7] The two organizations are intertwined. A bit surprised toward the "no consensus" keep of last AFD as the only other comments were from two SPAs whose only edits ever were to that discussion. See diffs: [8][9] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are just notable for what they do with Top Cow in comic books. Check out their website. They have a lot of notable people they represent. They get brief mention in news articles about people they represent signing deals with big film studios and whatnot. A company is notable based on what it has produced in whatever industries its involved in, and this company has produced plenty of notable things. Dream Focus 01:32, 20 June 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, czar · · 17:01, 26 June 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) 20:27, 3 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. L Faraone 01:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Bizzarri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Francesco Bizzarri

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

There is no evidence whatsoever that this person exists. Neither a GScholar nor a VIAF search provided any results, for that matter. 78.53.128.204 (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this article is the author's sole contribution to Wikipedia, and the Japanese version of the article already seems to have been deleted. --78.53.128.204 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed this nomination on behalf of 78.53.128.204, who posted the above at Talk:Francesco Bizzarri. On the merits, I have no opinion - but do note that the fate of the jp.wiki article is not strictly relevant to the fate of this one. My own (admittedly brief) search came up with results similar to the IP's - that is to say, nothing of relevance. But YMMV. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find anything either. I'd be prepared to AGF the offline Italian sources, but without inline citations, they don't actually back up any of the statements in the article. -- 203.171.196.18 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failure of WP:V and lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. There are publications by F. Bizzarri in Google scholar but they all appear to be different people in unrelated subjects. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't say that there's entirely a WP:V problem, just a web access to it problem -- the strangely titled, "Iconography of Italian Entomologists, with essential biographical data" does exist. It does however seem unlikely that he would pass WP:PROF, and I think some parts of the article (starting with the name...) are suspicious of a hoax. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot find sources to support WP:N. -- 202.124.72.19 (talk) 12:55, 10 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 no consensus. L Faraone 02:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Airdash[edit]

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

The article states that this band was one of the most popular thrash metal groups in Finland in the late 1980s to early 1990s, but there is no reference for that. I found no good coverage as well. Fails WP:BAND. SL93 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 June 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, czar · · 09:27, 26 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:58, 3 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. L Faraone 02:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrisburg Regional Chamber[edit]

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

Non-notable organization, that fails WP:ORG. No significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources CTF83! 10:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL local chamber of commerce org, not notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 26 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional. As per Starblind, regional suborganization, non-notable. Gamaliel (talk) 22:17, 9 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) 02:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Odorczyk[edit]

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

Article is about an entreprenuer/business person which does not appear to meet notability as there lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The article has only one source (local news), and my own search turns up very little. The best result I could find was him being quoted in this book. The article has had a variety of claims to notability, but none of them are backed up with any sources. See Talk:James Odorczyk for an anlysis of the the claims. There 10 references noted in the anlysis comes from a much earlier version of the article. See this version. Whpq (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 20 June 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, czar · · 17:17, 26 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. — Frankie (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom's arguments above. - Finnegas (talk) 10:15, 10 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) 04:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artem Soroko[edit]

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

Hasn't made his debut for main squad, has he? Junior caps are not enough for notability, no evidence of GNG passing Postoronniy-13 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 4 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) 03:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per argument outlined by Sir Sputnik. Finnegas (talk) 22:45, 5 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 no consensus. No consensus in the strict sense of the term, but a merger to Ambulance Operators Association of Nova Scotia appears the most broadly acceptable solution. Sandstein 09:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia Paramedic Society[edit]

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

PROD removed by article creator. PROD reason still stands, however: "Relatively young society. Google search gives 26 hits, none of them to independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:GROUP or WP:GNG. Article creation premature". Randykitty (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GROUP and WP:GNG. Not notable. PK T(alk) 16:26, 18 June 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, czar · · 14:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Articles relate to the development of Nova Scotia EMS and the evolution of this system. Part of the history of the area.76.11.123.218 (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC) — 76.11.123.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment That is not a policy-based argument. We need reliable independent sources to verify the content. --Randykitty (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - a move to Emergency medical services in Nova Scotia may be in order. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Emergency medical services in Canada; there's a red link to Nova Scotia Emergency Health Services. Perhaps a move or redirect may be a cheap and easy way to dispose of this matter. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 1 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (with redirect) to Ambulance Operators Association of Nova Scotia which was recently put up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambulance Operators Association of Nova Scotia (closed as keep). That organisation is the predecessor to this one (sort of) and is older and has been the subject of more coverage. This much newer organisation (founded in 2011) hasn't yet been the subject of nearly as much coverage. There's a place, I think, to add some detail about this organisation to the end of that article with some detail about its genesis at the disbanding of the other. But I'd also have no problem with them being blended and moved to the title Nova Scotia Emergency Health Services with a full account of the old organisation and the new one and with appropriate redirects. I don't think such a topic would have any problem being considered notable and it would allow us to cover both properly though the more recently might not yet be notable enough to qualify for an article of its own. It seems a shame, having "saved" the other, to now delete this one and leave the "last part of the story untold". Stalwart111 06:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem I see with both the above proposed move and merge is that it doesn't solve the problem that we have no independent sources to base an article (or part of an article) on. --Randykitty (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, an entirely valid point. I supposed the complication is that the former was an industry association representing a number of operators but not their employees. There seems to now be only one operator and one capable of representing itself without an "association". This association doesn't do the employee advocate stuff, because that is left to the unions now. There isn't a great historical repository of content about this newer organisation because it is that repository of historical content - their aim is apparently to preserve the history of those previous organisations and people. Ironically, the latter organisation would probably be a good source of information about the former organisation. To be clear, I'd be advocating for the inclusion of a line or two, not a large section, just outlining that it exists and what it does and maybe covering the one or two things that can be verified with the couple of news articles that are available. Most of the unverified content would have to go. Stalwart111 03:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Appears this is the best solution for this article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:42, 5 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 no consensus. At any rate not to delete, maybe to merge, but that can be hashed out on the talk page if needed. Sandstein 09:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kamikaze (record label)[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:COMPANY. There is a single 2007 reference that details an initial press release. Although they may have had an artist on contract who later became notable, is not relevant, as notability is not inherited. Also evidence, and hence verifiability, of most of the article's contents is lacking. This article fails to have significant coverage, fails to have reliable sources. In searching, this company is not to be confused with Kamikaze Records which was formed in 1997 in the San Francisco Bay Area. --Bejnar (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and there are no WP:RS and the press release does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. However, I (jokingly) disagree with the nominator stating that there is "an artist on contract who later became notable." Looking at the WP:BAND articles linked from this one, I believe there should probably be a few more AfD discussions created. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your reasons to delete are based on a euro/american centric ideology. The company is very significant in Thailand, and meets notability criteria. The page needs updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.152.35 (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, our "reasons" are based on Wikipedia guidelines. "Significant" and "notability" may flow into each other, but they are two separate things. If they are "significant", then the media would pick them up and run articles on them. This would lead to WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS which can then be used to establish WP:GNG. While claiming that it is our "ideology" infuriates me and shows your ignorance, I want to assume good faith and make a point that I hope you pay attention to. You bring up that they are significant in "Thailand." If that is the case, then present references from that region that meet WP:RS. They must be from WP:RS but do not need to be in English. Pay attention to the links on WP:GNG and WP:RS and make your case based on that as opposed to blaming it on someone's "ideology." --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking only at Google results from the Bangkok Post and The Nation 's websites turns up substantial coverage.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] --Paul_012 (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

substantial coverage questioned Good skills in turns those up. However, that list is not all real coverage, only one actually provides coverage of the record label. #1 covers the Kamikaze label in depth, however, #2 covers a Kamikaze sponsored concert and has little to say about the label, #3 doesn't mention the label, per se, it has one sentence about the "dancing team 3.2.1 Kamikaze". #4 does mention the Kamikaze label, but in only one sentence saying they kept the other three band members under contract. #5 is again about a member of 3.2.1, only mentioning the Kamekazi label in passing. #6 is about the parent company "RS Public" and says in toto about the label: "Of the RS segments, Teen Community is the group aged from 10 to 17 years old, following new trends of Western and Asian music and spending their time mostly surfing the Internet. The music label of this segment is Kamikaze." #7 is a very short recap of a news release about an album, "a new collection, "Best of Kamikaze 2007-2011". #8 is again about hip-hop group 3.2.1, and only mentions Kamikaze in passing, and only because it quotes their head of music business, Hatai Sarawutpaiboon, about the group. So of all those that you have listed only one actually provides coverage of the record label. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the less in-depth mentions demonstrate national interest and contribute to evidence of notability. Most of them seem to be more than "merely trivial coverage" as mentioned in WP:CORPDEPTH.

No, most of them are exactly mere trivial coverage. But see my comment below. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'd like to clarify that I wouldn't oppose merging to RS Promotion (or wherever that currently redirects to). As a sub-label, WP:PRODUCT probably applies and the parent article isn't by any means overflowing with content. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RS Public Company Limited does seem to be notable, there is much more coverage of it than of its subsidiaries. I would agree to a redirect to RS Public Company Limited; however, I would not agree to merging content for which there is no citation to reliable sources, which, right now, is most of the content. --Bejnar (talk) 04:16, 18 June 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) 17:34, 25 June 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, Dusti^*poke* 19:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to RS Public Company Limited, a change from my original suggestion to delete as nominator. Since no one else is commenting and this should be closed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:15, 8 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. L Faraone 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Romano[edit]

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

This article appears to fail Wikipedia's guidelines on general notability and for academics and scholars. The only sources available on the internet appear to be Dr. Romano's website and the website of the Naval Postgraduate School: there are no independant secondary sources available. Dr. Romano has authored some books however they do not appear to be widely cited. There does not appear to be any media coverage of the subject. Jackc143 (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS h-index of 10[18]. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 4 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 to recreation of a more balanced article. L Faraone 02:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert S. Zimmer[edit]

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

Article created by a SPA account. Article "for hire" per author's own statement that "I am editing on behalf of ACM. The family of Dr. Zimmer asked us to get the article started on Wikipedia and they provided the content." No specific reliable third party sources are provided to support notability. May meet notability requirements but the method by which it was created is not in the spirit of the project. Possibly delete or stubbify? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm sure he was a swell guy, but we don't accept paid memorial articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a memorial. Dr. Zimmer has made a significant contribution that is part of an enduring historical record. He was a part of the founding of four(4) community colleges. The information in the article summarizes, informs, and references, it does not promote or sell. It states facts; they are not vague or general.

I provided references/links about Allegany College of Maryland, Kankakee Community College and Passaic County Community College. The information is not biased. I do not understand how an article can be referenced or linked if someone that is connected to the person/thing can not provide that information. I was getting more citations/links/references to verify the article on an ongoing basis until I was blocked.

Not sure what is meant by "Article for hire". There has been no compensation or gain from creating this article other than knowledge. What is the "spirit of Wikipedia/the project"? ACM Content Editor (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of earlier today you claimed that "I am employed by ACM as their Marketing Content editor". I'm assuming that ACM pays their Marketing Content editor with more that just 'knowledge'. Wikipedia does not accept "Marketing Content" and spam of any kind is strongly discouraged. Even if you're telling the truth and Marketing Content editor is some sort of unpaid position, it's still a grossly unacceptable conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Full of unsourced detail and promotional language, and the paid marketing aspect makes it doubly suspect. As a president of multiple colleges there's a strong possibility that he passes WP:PROF but any encyclopedia article needs to be built on a base of neutrality, by someone far enough removed from the subject to avoid using inside knowledge or writing a hagiography. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT, per David Eppstein. There's a chance Wikipedia should have an article about this subject, but it certainly shouldn't have an article about this subject written by someone with a strong conflict of interest. They've chosen just about the worst way of getting an article up, which is unfortunate, but I'm sure there is a non-COI editor out there willing to put the effort into a new article, properly sourced and with verifiable content. Stalwart111 07:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Stubbify and Rename without "Dr." for the reasons given by David Eppstein. I don't like the way it was created, but none of the argument seems to go for deletion. The article is marginally supported by independent sources. David Eppstein admits regarding Dr. Zimmer there's a strong possibility that he passes WP:PROF. --Bejnar (talk) 19:15, 8 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. L Faraone 02:05, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The JMU Overtones[edit]

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

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

College musical group, with no indications of independent notability, either as a music group or as a club. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added Bangerang!, an album produced by this group. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND or WP:ORG, whichever one prefers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Also, I apparently missed the AfD tag at Bangerang!; I turned it into a redirect back to the Overtones' article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @ C.Fred: No, you didn't miss the AFD tag at Bangerang!. I forgot to place it when I added it to this discussion. My bad. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JMU#Clubs and organizations The jmu.edu website here is a primary source that associates the group with the university, which is all that is needed for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Redirects are cheap, and the article is too poorly sourced to be concerned about whether or not the topic merits a standalone article. The existence of published albums creates a long-term need by the world at large to know more about the group, and Mohindroo has single-handedly raised the wp:prominence of the group; even though JMU#Clubs and organizations needs work and possibly a separate article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. STATic message me! 05:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I saw this article as a new page patroller when it was created and debated marking it for CSD A7, but did not. Its albums were all created and then made into redirects. Article is an orphan other than from Mohindroo, which should be changed to reflect deletion if article is deleted (and its several redirects would need to be deleted as well). Overall, delete because non-notable band. --kikichugirl (talk) 23:13, 10 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) 02:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott-Scott[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Müdigkeit (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep For heavens sake. I added referenced notability to the article, he's been interviewed by the British Library, he invented a type of rocket that successfully made orbit, and he's working on a spaceplane that also will make orbit, how much more notable does he need to be???? GliderMaven (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources is independent.--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's incorrect, he owns none of the sources, and they are all independent. He's being interviewed, he's a well respected engineer. Even the fact that he's being interviewed confers notability.GliderMaven (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You want to say this is independent? It is obvious that it is not. And the youtube video is from the British Library, and lacks the significant coverage, he is even labeled as one of many there...

And the British Library itself has lots of that type of material (over 1 million), it is not a reliable source. And that interview is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. And not everyone who was interviewed is notable, what makes you think so?--Müdigkeit (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that a video published by the British Library as part of their Oral History Program is not published by a reliable source?

Well, you're welcome to that opinion, but I personally consider that the British Library is a reliable source in this context.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's other videos I've seen him also, from the same program, most of the people in these videos are notable, the cover other things involving UK aerospace. Eric Brown featured heavily and one or two American test pilots as well.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews are primary sources.--Müdigkeit (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews and documentaries are secondary sources because they've been put together by the producer of the footage who have editorial control.GliderMaven (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He also features in a long article by Francis Spufford in the London Review of Books on the history of the UK space programme: [19]. ~~(If I could remember my subscriber logon I'd be in a better position to quote.)~~ "John Scott-Scott was a hydrodynamicist at Armstrong Siddeley Rocket Motors ... He invented a turbo-pump incorporating a floating ‘cavitation bubble’ which could turn at 100,000 rpm. " AllyD (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right, I've never seen a good reference to it, but I have it on good authority that he invented a supersonic turbopump, that would be the one.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's also covered in Francis Spufford's Backroom Boys: The Secret Return of the British Boffin. I don't have the book to hand (but I have got a copy) but you can see an exert here: https://findings.com/source/c2UfOs/backroom-boys/ GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But he's notable just from the oral history stuff.GliderMaven (talk) 19:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like he is notable...--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but tag for expansion -- He may be notable, but the present articel does not show it. Clearly there is material out there to make a decent article, but some one needs to write it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable, and there are independent sources. Interviews are only useful for things that are within the personal knowledge of the individual (such as their own opinions) and where the information itself is not controverted (see, e.g. actresses' birthdates); see the acceptable list of reflexive information at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. The British Library is perfectly reliable, that does not mean that any statement made by an interviewee in an interview conducted by them is reliable. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 8 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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), and no other !votes for deletion. Converting noms to a merge discussion (here) at nom's request. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendulator[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet general notability guidelines, and does not appear likely to move beyond its current status anytime soon. Recommended for merge with List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:01, 3 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) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 3 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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), and no other !votes for deletion. Converting noms to a merge discussion (here) at nom's request. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nestopia[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet general notability criteria. Has been tagged for citations since 2007. Doesn't looks likely to move beyond its current status anytime soon. Recommended for merge with List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:58, 3 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) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you nominate this if you're going to suggest a merge? This should be speedily kept per WP:SK#1, and you should open a merge discussion. Beerest355 Talk 17:26, 3 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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), and no other !votes for deletion. Converting noms to a merge discussion (here) at nom's request. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jnes[edit]

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

Article is little more than a stub, has very little content and only one source (decent, though). Does not appear likely to move beyond its current state. Recommended for merge with List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:53, 3 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) 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#1 - nominator proposes non-deletion action (merge). Beerest355 Talk 17:28, 3 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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), and no other !votes for deletion. Converting noms to a merge discussion (here) at nom's request. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ensata[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant sources, does not appear to meet general notability guidelines, and does not appear likely to do so in the future. Recommended for merge with List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:51, 3 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) 16:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 3 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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom proposes non-deletion action (merge), and no other !votes for deletion. Converting noms to a merge discussion (here) at nom's request. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sixtyforce[edit]

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

No significant sources, just barely not a stub. Does not appear to meet Notability criteria and doesn't appear likely to do so in the future. Recommended to merge to List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:45, 3 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) 16:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 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 in order to move to an article about the case. Only reason I am not moving it immediately is it's not obvious to me what it should be moved to. I'll try to remember to check back here in a week or two, and if it's not moved by then, I'll move it to something. -- Y not? 02:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Laszlo Haines[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator; I believe this fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 15:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is notable for setting a legal precedent. He is well covered by RS but the sources should be moved inline. A rename may work as 'Albert Laszlo Haines Tribunal' or something similar. The tribunal is notable even if Mr. Haines is not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The law may be notable; he is not. Giant Snowman 15:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The legal precedent is probably worth discussion in our Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales) article - but the individual concerned appears not to notable by Wikipedia standards. I can see no justification for having a biography on an individual based solely on a single legal ruling, per WP:BLP1E. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From journal Mental Health Practice as sourced: "While Mr Haines's plight captured the imagination of the press for a short while, the principle of whether such hearings should be held in public will have wider ramifications for mental health services". And the key point is that legal precedent is not just a bare fact but, as stated in the official documents sourced, was dependent on the complex lengthy detention & psychiatric diagnosic issues involved with this particular patient which is why it was granted to him. Sighola (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is this person notable? How is the legal precedent independently notable? What justifies having a seperate article, as AndyTheGrump says? Giant Snowman 16:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one thing following from the precedent, notorious Moors murderer Ian Brady was also granted a public hearing which has been all over the news for weeks as you may know. National coverage linking that to Haines's case includes Ian Brady set to have public mental health tribunal hearing "Albert Haines, 52, made legal history when he successfully argued that his case should be considered at an open hearing". Sighola (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal history" gets set all the time in British courts, that's how "precedent" works. It does not mean that every single ruling is notable, and it does not mean that people involved are notable. Again, what justifies having a seperate article? Giant Snowman 16:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that both the medical and legal fields would consider this case notable. Does Wikipedia only include notable fancruft articles like Julian Bashir and Abbey Bartlet? We shouldn't be so quick to delete articles only because they are not notable to our personal knowledge. Mainstream media and the above journal think it is notable as well as others. I also added it to two projects that may wish to chime in, being more familiar with the notability level. They are quiet projects so they may take a while to get here. As I said above, it does need to be a BLP so a re-name may be in order.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I also think GiantSnowman repeated his question without having really addressed my answers. And also stuck the article up for speedy deletion with obscene haste rather than "as a last resort" per policy. Sighola (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A number of medico-legal first in the UK as seen here. The topic is certainly notable. Perhaps the title of the article could be changed to something other than a BLP, such as Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal (UK legal precedent) or something along those lines. Ochiwar (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- ~~No references~~, and suspect does not meet bio notability per arguments above. A sense of possible advocacy and non NPOV when reading the page. If we had a lot of refs like John Hunt (psychiatric patient) which is in the see also, this might look more like it was meeting notability. If the legal precedent itself were notable, as per Ochiwar's suggestion, most of article's content would have to go, and need a least one source still. What might be potentially salvaged would need rewrite for NPOV, and renaming of the article as already mentioned. I can't foresee anyone being willing to do this anytime soon on such a niche topic, so overall, delete. Lesion (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a list of refs, I didn't see it before. Lesion (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly irritating to say no one bothered to work on it while voting to delete my hard work without having even noticed the sources let alone read. Sighola (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that no-one was likely to be willing to do the further work on the article that was being described above. If you have no conflict of interest and you are willing to made the required changes: remove bio content, reword to a more NPOV, then there is a better case to rework the article to describe the legal precedent rather than a bio, instead of deletion. Lesion (talk) 23:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out though, the legal verdicts state that they hinged on biographical and clinical facts about Haines as an individual, and in addition he was personally the focus of some of the national press articles. I agree it needs to be kept in the context of its main source of notability which was the legal process. But you point out the John Hunt article, well that seems to have some excessive level of details, sourcing to local papers etc, bound up in advocacy, even if it does have loads of tedious-to-create inline sourcing which I don't tbh see would add much here. Sighola (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down and rename Clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Maybe it could be an article on Albert Laszlo Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal, better still a couple of paragraphs in an article on mental health law in the United Kingdom. Newspaper sources are fine, but using the transcript of the tribunal as a source, as this article seems to do, would count as original research, would it not? MartinPoulter (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it's a 'clear' violation since the case was clearly notable and he was clearly at the centre of it, legally because the two hearings state that they turned on his background not just technical points of law, and in the media where some articles were mainly about his background & diagnoses & very long detention (including personal interviews with him). Above I've also evidenced ongoing general repercussions noted in journal & media. The published tribunal documents are listed in sources but most of the article is from the summaries in the media. Sighola (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with Martin Poulter that the tribunal transcript, if not WP:OR, is a bit heavy - without the filter of a WP:RS third party. Notability of this individual in Wikipedia terms is probably marginal. But I'd still vote to Keep. An article that isn't a regurgitation of other facts repeated in many other places. Probably why I found it so interesting. Even if it gets deleted, thanks for writing it. I might well take a copy, in case it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it's not a transcript of the hearing but a fairly brief judicial summary of key findings. I have though as implied added what I called a third party legal summary of it. Sighola (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but possibly rename (from original creator of article) Tend to agree with points that the legal precedent is the main ongoing notability so the article could be renamed but not sure on the technicalities, should it be Albert Haines vs Mental Health Review Tribunal, or vs WLMHT NHS? nb as noted there are several legal events involved - the decision to allow the hearing to be public, the hearing itself, and the decision to publish the panel's conclusions. If the article is kept soon I'll put all the sourcing inline, I've already pruned back the sections. Incidentally I have drastically pruned back an existing article John Hunt mentioned above which had a lot of repetitive/unreliable sourcing and offtopic/excessive detail; seems by a similar rationale that should be renamed Campaign for John Hunt or something. Sighola (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename and purge -- The reference to Jimmy Savile is wholly irrelevant. Haines himself is a NN mental patient, but his case is a legal precedent. We should have an article about the case, which will need to give a considerable amount about his career. Merging it into the artilce on tribunals would be likely to unbalance that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree re. the content that mentioned Jimmy Saville. When I was reading the article I thought that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic. I can only guess at the reason why that was included-- maybe to make that hospital sound bad or something, who knows. Lesion (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to hold my hands up to the sentence about Savile, but it's not about the hospital per se but the fact that a victim of childhood sexual abuse was sent to a hospital being co-run by a celebrity sex offender. Broadmoor is currently subject to major investigation over that so who knows what might come out, but of course it could be removed (by anyone right?). Agree re Mental Health Review Tribunal (England and Wales), guess it could have a sentence or two about right to public hearings now. I note that article is massively out of date and was completely missing systemic changes made in 2008 - I've added a bit & tagged it. Sighola (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move or smerge. It's quite clear that this person is not notable, according to WP:ONEEVENT. We also have had a long-standing informal practice at AfD to err on the side of caution for children and incapacitated persons. On the other hand, the case could be notable. A precedent could be notable solely for its effect on legal history. The ongoing consensus here is that precedents, even if only remotely followed or limited to extreme cases today, can be notable, see, e.g., Sherwood v. Walker, Meinhard v. Salmon, Rights of Englishmen. How do cases or rules of law become notable? We don't have a strict checklist (cf. WP:MUSICBIO, WP:PROF), but some factors do count, such as:
being a case of first impression
being cited in news articles, blogs, well-respected commentary, or Restatements
being written by a famous judge
being taught in case studies or briefs in law school or legal education
being cited frequently - the sheer number of cases that have cited it alone can be a metric of a case's importance
In a pinch, we can always go to Wikipedia:Notability (events) as a guideline. Bearian (talk) 14:05, 11 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IIMSAM[edit]

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

The organization has insufficient notability for an entrance on wikipedia. According to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), organizations should be treated in at least two indendent sources (treating the organization as its main topic), and no such articles are available.

Note 1: IIMSAM started as an official organ of the Collaborative Inter-Governmental Scientific Research Institute and as such is "just an organ" of the latter organization. However, as is evident from the website (and the edit wars on IIMSAM) the current IIMSAM management considers itself an independent organization. It fails to provide a basis for this assertion, and has not disclosed the multilateral treaty that the "independent" IIMSAM that might go a long way in helping establish notability (if multiple countries are party to a treaty, the treaty organization is treated at length in several gremia; ao the UN.
Note 2: Fox News is the only source that treats the organization (e.g. here). In my opinion that doesn't establish notability as it is i) only a single source and ii) claims that the organization (and especially its ties with the UN) are somehow bogus
Note 3: The main feat of the organization is acreditation by the UN-ECOSOC organization. This is helpful regarding notability, but it is unclear (after years of asking), whether this resides with the CISRI organ or with the new independent IIMSAM. It is telling that no further interviews etc treating the organization and its relationship with UN-ECOSOC are known, excpet the above mentioned fox articles... L.tak (talk) 14:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per L.tak. There's nothing to indicate that this organization is notable, it's received next to no coverage, and I'm not convinced that it actually functions in any meaningful way. Its website is mostly puffery and barely provides any meaningful information that can be used from a primary source. Acroterion (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My additions to the IIMSAM page that recommended its deletion were removed by the IP address based in Dubai, UAE. So I providing a copy of a letter that was sent to Kenya, which deals also deals with Article 102 of the UN. Also another link that deals with the shenanigans of IIMSAM which shows that IIMSAM is a scam organization- http://settysoutham.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/arevencas-constellation-of-weirdness-only-grows/

H.E. Mr. Macharia Kamau, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kenya to the United Nations 866 United Nations Plaza, Room 304 New York, N.Y. 10017 Via- Email and Fax: 212- 486-1985

Excellency,

Text containing libel and outing removed

Thanking you. I remainCrassnodaar (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of debate is this when the IP address 91.73.181.186 which is based in Dubai, UAE is deleting the points put forward by Crassnodaar and UNangel08 ? Counterpoints, if any, should be provided for a healthy debate Crassnodaar (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crassnodaar blocked as a sock of Jageshwar (talk · contribs) Acroterion (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per L.tak. I've long wondered about this article and even for a short period of time I thought it was a hoax because there was so little information on it from reliable sources. It's not a hoax, but it's also not a notable organization per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per L.tak. I checked this morning and found report on Gulf Times which claims that IIMSAM is a non governmental organisation.http://gulfnews.com/arts-entertainment/celebrity/hussain-al-jasmi-wants-a-fitter-uae-1.1206274 It is not what is claims to be and is not a notable organization per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies).Samarkaand (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Samarkaand blocked as a sock of Jageshwar (talk · contribs). Acroterion (talk) 11:38, 8 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) 04:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Urban coyote[edit]

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

There really is no species as "urban coyote". It is the same species as "coyote" (See the infoboxes - both are listed as "C. latrans"). This information can and should be merged into coyote. I don't see this as a separate topic (Posted by User:AndyTheGrump on behalf of IP User:67.183.113.3)

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 3. Snotbot t • c » 13:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coyote. This is important information on the species. If you feel bold and the article is not "owned" you could just go ahead and merge it. BayShrimp (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the article click on "Category:Urban animals" and you will see that most are the main article on the species. BayShrimp (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought when an AfD is started we are supposed to let it run its course.BayShrimp (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Having completed the AfD process on behalf of the IP, it might not be appropriate to !vote, but I will say that I can see the IP's point of view regarding the issue. As it stands, the existing coyote article has a considerable amount of material on coyote-human interaction, which needs to be read in conjunction with any discussion on urban coyotes. Given the relatively small size of this article, I can't see any particular reason why it shouldn't be merged, keeping all the information in one place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just redirect to Coyote, where the topic is already covered at some length, primarily in this section. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The IP's assumption seems to be that that article's content was split from Coyote because it is being treated as separate species, which is totally incorrect. It was split because it's large and well-defined enough to be split in to a sub-article, which we do all the time on Wikipedia. There are many sources that are specifically about coyotes in urban environments, which is why I was able to trim the pretty bloated Coyote article and bring more content. This kind of sub-article for a type is less common as you can see from Category:Urban animals, but that doesn't mean it isn't merited by the reliable source coverage and the need to keep the main article to summary style. It actually isn't that much smaller than another good example of this kind of subarticle, Rats in New York City. Steven Walling • talk 15:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Urban coyote and Coyote may be the same species, but how they interact with humans is entirely different. Academics have treated the subject or urban coyotes as distinct from rural ones. The article is well-referenced. The phenomenon of coyotes living among people will continue to grow as more coyotes live in suburbs and cities.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason for the deletion request, the mistaken presence of a taxobox, has already been dealt with by its removal. Therefore, we should thank this editor with the IP address in Seattle for his action which resulted in article improvement already and close this and call it a day and a job well done.

The reasons given since then, here above, are not valid: there is a large and quickly growing amount of material specifically about the ecology, biology, behavior of urban coyotes and the problems they do or don't cause, all of which seem to agree that they are different in significant ways, more than enough to make this article potentially too long and detailed to merge into the article Coyote, any more than it would be an improvement to merge the articles war elephant, street dog, pet skunk, sloth moth, house plant, working rat, houseplant, gut flora, or any number of other examples into their parent articles.

Furthermore, consider the example of the article Coyote attacks on humans, which says: "In the absence of the harassment of coyotes practiced by rural people, urban coyotes are losing their fear of humans, which is further worsened by people intentionally or unintentionally feeding coyotes." Note the need for a good blue link in that sentence. We need to refer to this article in such contexts when discussing related topics; it helps the whole system by allowing us to easily refer to the referent of this article if/when we need/want to in some context. Chrisrus (talk) 19:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a daughter article of Coyote, which is already fairly long. -- 203.171.197.20 (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm seeing massive book coverage specifically on urban coyotes. Easily meets WP:GNG. -- 202.124.88.7 (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Summary style. Clearly notable as a subtopic about coyotes. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable subject per se, correct split from main article. Well-referenced. -- cyclopia^speak! 20:50, 7 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) 03:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leonid Bandorin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC. Ahecht (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Based on the information given, does not meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not impossible for someone this junior to pass WP:PROF, but it's unlikely, and the article presents no evidence to show that he does. His government work doesn't seem at a level to make him notable either. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:49, 9 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 speedy delete as a copyvio. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmilla Brazil[edit]

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

This subject does not appear to qualify for an article per WP:BASIC; source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy delete as copyvio from the artist's website. So tagged. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 3 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation from http://welcome.alpaltiner.com/ JohnCD (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alp Allen Altiner[edit]

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

This subject doesn't appear to qualify for a Wikipedia article at this time per WP:BASIC. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion WP:G12: blatant copyright violation from the artist's website. Dricherby (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 3 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 AfD nomination withdrawn, because the article was speedy deleted by user:Jimfbleak per CSD#G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) and for being an "unsourced biography of a living person." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shakeb Sultan[edit]

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

This subject does not appear to qualify for a Wikipedia article per WP:BASIC. Not finding significant coverage in reliable sources at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 3 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) 03:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stop Dead[edit]

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

After searching for significant coverage in reliable sources for this relatively new band, the coverage doesn't appear to exist at this time. The topic appears to fail point #1 of WP:BAND for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. This may be an instance of WP:TOOSOON. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Koala15 (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty clearly fails WP:BAND. STATic message me! 05:13, 7 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) 02:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G.R. Patil College[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, orphan article and unreferenced Gbawden (talk) 09:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an attempt at publicity per WP:CSD#G11. I observe that this has been speedy-deleted before under a different name, and the article creator has an apparent COI given the contribution history. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We generally keep all articles on tertiary, degree-awarding institutions. No reason for this to be an exception. It's not advertising in the slightest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Necrothesp. Also if the creator user had intentions of advertising while creating the article, it hardly is advertising now or was even then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:03, 9 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. L Faraone 02:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Howard (British Army officer)[edit]

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

This orphan article fails WP:SOLDIER IMO Gbawden (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The status of the article as an orphan is irrelevant to whether or not it should be kept or deleted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One second-level decoration and two third-level decorations. I think that's enough for notability. WP:SOLDIER says two second-level decorations for automatic notability - I think two third-level decorations can be said to equate to one second-level. The MC and Bar is not given out in cornflakes packets. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per full obituaries in two serious national newspapers. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We do not seem to have list articles for Lieutenant-Colonels commanding battalions. MC and bar (i.e effectively two awards of it) is not trifling. The medal does come up with the pay! Peterkingiron (talk) 10:48, 8 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) 04:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mattiwade[edit]

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

14 word article on an obscure village in India - no notablility established and no information given — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookie (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NPLACE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The village verifiably exists (sourced to Indian Census in the article) and Wikipedia's function as a gazetteer is explicitly listed at WP:5PILLARS. Dricherby (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per user: Dharmadhyaksha. Rayabhari (talk) 16:39, 3 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Copyright status of work by U.S. state governments

Articles for deletion/Copyright status of work by U.S. subnational governments

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

This is Wikipedia synthesis; we have a large table that has real information filled in a few places only (because reliable non-primary sources only have information for a few places.) Anything on this page is already on Copyright status of work by the U.S. government‎ though someone keeps trying to delete it off that page. Prosfilaes (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. State law is outside the scope of Copyright status of work by the U.S. government‎, so it should not be covered on that page. Federal copyright law only covers the federal government. I see no synthesis in the state law article and, even if there is any, that can be solved by ordinary editing. By WP:PRIMARY, it is acceptable to use primary sources, as long as they are reliably published (which State Codes are) and no original analysis of the primary sources is included in the article. I see no notability issues, so no reason to delete. Dricherby (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State works copyright status in the US, like much other state law (see, e.g. State recognized tribes in the United States), is not a subset of federal law. Listing referenced law for 50 states is not synthesis. If not all states have information listed as yet, that is an argument for expansion via the normal editing process, not for deletion. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is no good, is it? The article was kept last month[20] and will be kept next month and the month after that. Synthesis would involve matters such as drawing conclusions about differences between the laws of different states without support from reliable sources. This article does nothing of the sort. Thincat (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and consider Wikipedia:Incomplete_lists#Incomplete_lists. (Note that we should be scrupulous in not over-interpreting the referenced statements—so in South Carolina, the fact that records are the "property of the people" doesn't definitively determine copyrightability. The article should continue to avoid original synthesis.) TheFeds 00:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is incomplete and a bit inconsistent in its formatting, but that is not good grounds for deleting it. This article provides important information about state copyright policies that is not available elsewhere on Wikipedia. Per WP:ATD: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. DavidinNJ (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I landed on this page, not from Wikipedia, but from Commons, where I was looking for info on the Commons-worthiness of an official anti-crime poster from the New York City police department. While the page didn't answer my question, maybe some day it will. But yes, the copyright policies of US states and local jurisdictions is a subject entirely separate from the policies of the Federal government. This shouldn't even be all list, either; there have been copyright and copyrightability issues that have arisen when many states have abandoned the publication of their own judicial decisions and leave the job to West Publishing as the official reporter. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:00, 8 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) 03:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joseki (RDF server)[edit]

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

deprecated open source software with no significant claim to fame Ysangkok (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, why is the fact that Joseki is now replaced by Fuseki a reason to delete? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To keep an article, you need to show that someone besides the people involved have noticed it. If nobody has demonstrated notability in six years, it is very unlikely that notability will someone be demonstrated now, after the software is no longer being developed. Perhaps one line could be added to the Jena (framework) article, which also needs help. A combined article with citations might be more likely to survive the next challenge, especially as this fades further into the past. W Nowicki (talk) 16:58, 20 June 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 00:59, 26 June 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, czar · · 03:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - software article lacking 3rd party refs to establish notability; no indication of notability; search did not find any significant RS coverage. The fact that it is defunct is not in itself a reason to delete, but in conjunction with the lack of existing RS coverage, suggests that there will be no RS coverage in the future. Dialectric (talk) 16:44, 7 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. L Faraone 02:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Alat[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for deletion because while the article asserts notability by way of him having created several songs for notable films, I can't really find sources that talk about this in a way that would give him notability. I'd declined a speedy on this because the claim gives him just enough assertion of notability to where he couldn't be speedied, but I think that there's still a big issue of notability here. I wanted to bring this to AfD to see if there are any foreign language sources that could back up his notability and claims. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:03, 19 June 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) 00:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page about a semi-pro singer. The article referenced in the article has only a passing mention of the subject in a list of names. His Twitter pages describes him as having dreams and aspirations in music, which may just indicate WP:TOOSOON but fails WP:MUSICBIO at present. AllyD (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Here is a news hit[21]--Iniciativass (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decent start, but the two problems are that he's only briefly mentioned and that this is only one source. We need more than a brief mention in an article about an unreleased album to truly show notability. Even if the album becomes notable, if that's the only thing we can verify then we would only be able to really redirect this to the article about that album. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:57, 26 June 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, czar · · 03:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage to date appears to fall short of meeting WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gong show 01:33, 10 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 Master Cleanse. I'll leave it to the masses to decide what, if anything, should be merged there. postdlf (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Burroughs[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable. Burroughs is the inventor of the "lemonade diet" which receives a lot of coverage, and Burroughs is mentioned as its creator many times too, sometimes with characterization ("quirky", "messianic", etc.). But there appears to be little or no reliable biographical coverage of any depth. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 06:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article they are author of 2 books... does this not meet notability? Lesion (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Burroughs seems to fail WP:BASIC and the fact that he is a WP:AUTHOR does not guarantee notability - his authorship of the lemonade diet books is recorded in the Master Cleanse article. Practically speaking if all the unsourced and improperly-sourced material is removed from the Stanley Burroughs article, is there even anything Wikipedia can say? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 00:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if they are notable or not. Above you suggest that the "lemonade diet" has received a lot of coverage (I've never heard of it). Doesn't this meet criterion 4? Not sure if 1-4 all have to be met, or only one. Lesion (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's up to editors to decide how the notability criteria are weighted on a case-by-case basis. In my view Burroughs as a person is not notable enough for an article, but the "lemonade diet" (aka Master Cleanse) is - maybe a solution is to have the Burroughs article redirect to Master Cleanse where he is mentioned as its inventor in the books he wrote? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then I think merge leaving redirect might be appropriate. If the content we can keep is all covered in another article, then there should be nothing much to merge, and it is basically a delete. Lesion (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Master Cleanse. There is little or no verified biographical information to support a biographical article. The current article consists almost entirely of verbatim quotation from a judge's ruling in the subject's criminal trial, massively WP:UNDUE. --MelanieN (talk) 21:03, 18 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:51, 25 June 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, czar · · 03:30, 3 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia Mental Literacy Movement[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NEVENT, i found a mention here but the rest of a WP:SET appear to be either self-published or from the site of the movement itself. TKK ^{bark !} 19:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 18 June 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 01:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The regular and news search links above do give a good number of results, mostly from The Star, and a slightly better search can be made by removing the quotes, for example [22]. Some links [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. Most of them focus on their activities (see also [31]), but by now it's clear to me that the organization is notable as well because of them. There's also this 2007 note [32] [33] [34] about the Prime Minister approving a program by the MMLM in public schools, but I can't see if it was implemented. — Frankie (talk) 16:20, 28 June 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, czar · · 03:29, 3 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) 04:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kempler-Johanson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability. Paul_012 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 18 June 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 01:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half the sources are YouTube links. — Wylie pedia 10:24, 26 June 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, czar · · 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely lacking reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage available at all, let alone from reliable sources. — Frankie (talk) 04:04, 4 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) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pegboard Nerds[edit]

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

Promotional, no secondary sources, notability Semitransgenic _talk. 17:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this page come across as promotional? I'll do my best to add some secondary sources and establish notability: I'm surprised that 55,000 Facebook likes and a lot of chart success isn't enough to count as notable. I don't know how well you know the electronic dance music community but the Nerds are very much a part of it, and I'd be happy to help persuade you further! DJUnBalanced (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's promotional in so far as it has the appearance of something that exists primarily for SEO purposes and serves zero encyclopedic value at this point, there are many such articles on Wikipedia. We need WP:RS for articles of any description. Also, the article fails WP:NMG criteria. At the very least clear evidence of national chart success is required, Beatport is not enough. There are 1000s of EDM acts coming and going every month, what makes this one so notable? Semitransgenic _talk. 10:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that the prose sounds promotional, but that can easily be fixed if this is kept. Unfortunately, I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources, and that is what counts towards notability, not how many "likes" someone got. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the fact that they're on the lineup for Global Gathering and Creamfields change your views on their notability? I can add some more relevant information to back up WP:NMG if you point me in the right direction. DJUnBalanced (talk) 16:01, 24 June 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 01:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article isn't in a great condition, but Pegboard Nerds are well known in the EDM community. I'll look for some references. Green CKE 12:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's some references. I don't think many of these are reliable or enough to establish notability, though.

Green CKE 12:11, 26 June 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, czar · · 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GreeenCKE, I don't understand why you're recommending keep when your own conclusion appears to be that the band is not notable. Dricherby (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE agree with others, none of the sources are usable, some are nothing more than press releases, "well known within the EDM community" is not equivalent to notable within the context of dance music, or music articles more generally. There are hundreds of EDM acts out on the club circuit, being "known" and being notable, are very different things. 81.138.0.28 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Appears to be WP:TOOSOON for an article -- this musical group currently fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG.I am unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (And the links above provided by GreenCKE do not meet Wikipedia requirements.) — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:07, 7 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 no consensus. postdlf (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Blackwell[edit]

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

Autobiographical article about a WP:NN former Canadian diplomat. Primary sources only. (Was a promotional piece before massive copyvio was removed) Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT. LibStar (talk) 02:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No Comment either way but I added more cites and text to the article. Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 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 01:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article has been cleaned up. Lots of news coverage of this diplomat on GNews, both as ambassador to Dominican Republic and as OAS secretary. Also, as a recipient of Order of Merit of Duarte, Sanchez and Mella Grand Cross with Silver Breast Star, he satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Pburka (talk) 03:24, 28 June 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, czar · · 03:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete SPAM articles without reliable sources.--Benfold (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify which of the sources you believe are unreliable? Pburka (talk) 21:23, 4 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) 03:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Ballantyne[edit]

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

Through further investigation, in this BLP, pretty much all of the sources that prove the significance of this person is bogus. The Youtube page of this person is rather old (with no views so this person isn't WP:N. Basically an advertisement. GuyHimGuy (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NMUSIC. Andrew³²⁷ 21:20, 8 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) 04:29, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topnuz[edit]

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

Not notable. Promotion article only. Tyros1972 Talk 09:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, and considerably promotional. I did decline a speedy G11 though, as it was not so entirely promotional as to meet the qualifications for G11. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I opened up a sock investigation [[35]] as since we had 8 different users contest it, some anon and others newly registered. I think (though can't prove) that this proves it is advert/promo since they are doing this. Personally I prefer the AfD as speedy's come back and wind up going thru AfD anyway. Let's just salt this one when it's closed. Tyros1972 Talk 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They just added a 9th contest to the speedy even though it's closed. The person must be using a proxy and page cache is old. Talk:Topnuz Tyros1972 Talk 20:30, 18 June 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 01:26, 26 June 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, czar · · 03:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two news articles from Diario Jaen and El Pais (here in English) provide some useful content, but they're both basically just descriptions of the website (a la WP:1E, though obviously not a person). Given it's a very young website, it's not surprising there's nothing else to meet WP:WEB or the WP:GNG. — Frankie (talk) 04:52, 4 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. withdrawing nom with the assumption that those voting keep will improve the article with these sources (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FIDLAR[edit]

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

unremarkable band. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. As indicated when this was deproded, even a cursory Google search is sufficient to demonstrate notability. From the first 3 pages of Google results: Pitchfork: [36][37], The Guardian: [38], Rolling Stone: [39], Allmusic: [40][41], LA Weekly: [42]. Dig just a little deeper and there is coverage from SPIN: [43], Exclaim!: [44], NME: [45]. Imagine what might be found from a thorough search. Utterly mystifying nomination. --Michig (talk) 05:45, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As what Michig said. buff bills 7701 22:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Michig. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:01, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 4 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) 10:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen City Kamikaze[edit]

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

No references to notability, no hits on Gnews. In short a local event, failing WP:GNG Gtwfan52 (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm afraid that there's not enough coverage for this particular con. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm seeing some hits on social media pages and blogs, but not enough coverage in reliable sources to support an article at this time. Gong show 03:24, 10 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Las Huelgas Reales Monastery[edit]

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

Neither dab entry matches the title as far as I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. While neither article uses the term, it does appear to crop up in a few places. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 3 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 no consensus. Many comments from all sides strike me as somewhat weak as they do not focus on the sourcing situation, which is the only thing that counts from a policy/guidelines perspective, but in the end there's no consensus as to whether we should keep, merge or delete this. Sandstein 09:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Mahjong[edit]

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

This article is yet another case of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and pretty much also WP:GAMEGUIDE. The fact that this game is part of a notable computing system does not make the game notable, and I wasn't able to find any independent critical reviews or in-depth sources about this game. We've had this with Chess Titans, Spider Solitaire (Windows), and Purble Place, which I've also nominated for deletion, and were having it with this article too. EditorE (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per EditorE. I originally hesitated about voting to delete, but rationally, it makes sense. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A fun game, but not notable by WP standards according to a google search. ^King Jakob _C2 01:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per precedents: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FreeCell (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearts (Windows), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solitaire (Windows). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might I mention WP:WAX and the fact many of the "precedents" are actually considerably higher-quality than this article. ^King Jakob _C2 12:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should actually read WP:WAX before attempting to use it incorrectly. It does not apply to deletion discussions. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 6 days, but I must point out that WP:WAX is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Ansh666 18:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me - I meant that WP:WAX doesn't apply to using deletion discussions (as opposed to the mere existence of other articles) as precedents, whether in other deletion discussions or elsewhere. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Ansh666 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Dogmaticeclectic has a point, which is why I hesitate in casting my !vote. But thinking about it, I don't really think it adds much to Wikipedia. While it's true many, many more people will have heard of this game than they have of 95% of your average WP entries, it just doesn't meet WP's guidelines in my humble reading of them. I could switch sides if other arguments spring up here, but I am not entirely convinced by precedents.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 04:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability. (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 09:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a Macintosh by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that notability of Windows doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: WP:GAMEGUIDE is an invalid reason for deletion in this case, since there is other content present. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What in the Devil's name are you talking about? Most content ~~(high score, Highest Scores, Winning Strategies and for getting a high score)~~ look all pretty much GAMEGUIDE to me, and there's very little other content that is present here, not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. EditorE (talk) 12:46, 3 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) 15:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I have added more WP:RS to the article. I would ask that the other participants involved in this discussion re-evaluate their positions in light of this. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The only source of any type of notability and reliability is the supersite one (about.com is an SPS, and the gamespot one is not very detailed, and little about the specific implementation of Mahjong here). Verifable as installed with Vista but that's about it. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "about.com is an SPS" - I'm still waiting for you to provide a link to such a consensus. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Review the archives at WP:RS/N for "about.com". Because anyone can become a contributor - though there is a screening process - that still doesn't make the people involved necessarily experts and they can post without editor oversight, making it an SPS. But it doesn't matter here on that - the about.com is giving zero depth outside of gameplay rules and UI details, which is far from secondary sourcing. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge Perhaps the games could be succinctly described on one of the Microsoft Entertainment Pack pages. That comes pretty close to a deletion, but it's better than nothing. LazyBastard Guy 20:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I managed to miss this one somehow. Like the others, I'm thinking weak keep on this one, because of the Gamespot article. More sources would be necessary for a good article, but it can squeak by for now. Ansh666 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One secondary source[46] here looks good enough to prove its notability. Apart from that, trim/rewrite inappropriate material. The Big Hoof! (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really a "significant coverage". If there were 3 or 4 other sources that have that same light depth (one paragraph), that might attribute to this, but we have no "significant coverage" across all sources given. Just enough to establish WP:V. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apart from the found coverage, with lends credit to the Wikipedia notability of the subject, it is simply insane for whoever is not a Borg that a piece of software included in one of the most popular operating systems worldwide is considered "non notable". If our house rules make it so, then it is our notability rules that have to adapt. WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED are guidelines (even if an important one), that should be applied with a grain of salt. One has ask herself, before nominating: what advantage to the readers does deleting this article accomplish? Is the encyclopedia and our readers' experience better or worse without this article? In this case I feel the answer is obvious: the removal of this article is of no benefit. Please remember we're here for the readers. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Cyclopia's reasoning. The guideline pages say there are occasional exceptions, as does WP:IAR. Just common sense. Hundreds of millions of people have this on their computer, unknown millions have tried it, and nothing gained by deleting the article. Dream Focus 15:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To both Cyclopia and DF, notability is not based on popularity, it's based on coverage. Just because millions of people have that piece of software doesn't make it appropriate to devote a poorly-sourced standalone article about it. Merging into an article about what is contained in Vista? Sure. Just not standalone. --MASEM (t) 00:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's exactly the kind of reasoning showing that the WP ruleset, while generally okay, can fail catastrophically in edge cases. Yes, notability is usually not based on popularity, and that something is not popular does not mean it is non notable. However the reverse cannot be true: If WP-notability is at risk of dismissing something used regularly by millions of people, there is something wrong with our rules. That said, if a merge is a rule-compliant way of maintaining information, I do not disagree, but I still consider it an inferior solution. -- cyclopia^speak! 09:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're not dismissing the topic, we're dismissing the need to have a stand-alone article on something that, given what little sourcing is there, can be explained in one or two sentences. There's simply not sufficient sourcing for a quality encyclopedic article on this game alone, but certainly sufficient via WP:V for supporting its existence in a larger topic. --MASEM (t) 13:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - The need is given by the simple consideration that something with such a wide user base has to deserve its own article, even if it is a permastub. Merging in a larger topic is better than nothing, but it is still unsatisfactory. -- cyclopia^speak! 15:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, not from an encyclopedic standpoint. Permastubs - ones that we're pretty confident have no chance of growing and where the topic can be discussed in a larger context - are unnecessary. We still want the term to be searchable, for sure - the fact there are millions of players makes that a no-brainer - so a redirect to an appropriate article that summarizes pre-installed Windows games with a paragraph to cover this game (as well as the others presently at AFD in other similar paragraphs) keeps the game's coverage to an appropriate level for WP, still documenting its existance, and puts its into the larger context of other Windows games so that a reader may get an idea of what other titles have been shipped with Windows before. If for some reason this gets a lot more sourcing in the future, we can undo the redirect and continue the article from where it was w/o losing previous contributions. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 10 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) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WIDWAW[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -we have wiktionary for that. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't. Wiktionary isn't for unattestable neologisms any more than Wikipedia is for nonnotable ones. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan. Angr (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This strikes me as borderline no context speedy deletion, but I guess if I knew what multi-project-management or PM mean, I might not think so. Unfortunately, the article includes nothing to inform me what they are. Cnilep (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PM means Pharmaceutical Marketing, I believe..... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project Management, most likely.-- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 05:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --- seems a more or less speediable case of WP:DICDEF, if not indeed of WP:NEO also. Since there are good homes for definitions and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, it doesn't belong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:23, 3 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 no consensus. L Faraone 02:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Socchard[edit]

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

A French businessperson. No independent, reliable references about him. Article was also deleted from the French Wikipedia for lack of references. Only one of the "references" is about Socchard and that is an interview. Rest of "references" either don't mention him or are about the companies. Article is not entirely true. Socchard was not the only founder of WorldNet and may not be a founder at all. Unable to find any independent, reliable references except for brief mentions of Socchard. Bgwhite (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references from French news paper archives, it clearly shows the link between WorldNet and Sebastien, and the placing of WorldNet in france when it was operating Syed Junaid (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 June 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) 18:49, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It definitely makes him notable for creating one of the 1st internet companies in france This source and also of Electroinic Mail patents This Source, There are plenty of sources which confirm This Source and also This Source Which confirms the relation of Sebastien with Worldnet. I think the article can be further expanded by writing about his Patents. Syed Junaid (talk) 13:28, 28 June 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) 00:25, 3 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) 04:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheapfareguru.com[edit]

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

I found no coverage for this website. However, the only reviews from users that I can find call this company a scam operation. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't pass the notability test and reads like an "About us" page on the site itself. Wikipedia is not AboutUs.org or dmoz. --Kimon^talk 12:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Note that if it is indeed a scam, and if it becomes a notable scam, then it might end up meriting an article as a high-profile scam. Scams need love too, sometimes. But not this time, I don't think. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Kimon. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Newsjunky12 (Talk) 00:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC) Proud member of the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians.[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.