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.
Contested prod. I'll give the same reasoning again:There is no such thing as the "Java update virus". The "fake software update" window is a fairly common trojan/malware delivery system, not a specific piece of software, has had no coverage in reliable sources other than in-passing "make sure you're updating Java from the correct site" mentions on tech blogs and the like, and certainly doesn't warrant an article of its own. There are (literally) millions of viruses, malware and trojans, and aside from those which have a genuinely significant economic or cultural impact Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to document them. The page creator admits that no sources exist (see the article talk page), but wants this article kept to "raise awareness of that virus causing a research group to carefully research how that virus works then they will create a reliable source for that article". I've tried to explain that this isn't how Wikipedia works, but with no apparent success. Mogism (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:COMMONSENSE - Download off a non-official site - You 90% get a virus ..... It's common sense ... →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sourcing. An individual virus is only notable if there's specific sourcing for that virus. This article is unsourced and so far no more than rumour and scaremongering. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting the article, it might be better to rename it and turn it into an article about all viruses that pretend to be a Java update and mention the spicific virus I was talking about somewhere in that article since it's such a powerful virus. There should also be a redirect from the old name of the article to the new name. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a how-to guide about some nonspecific nonnotable virus. OSbornarfcontribs. 02:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - combination of original research, no reliable sources, and how-to. As above, this article does not belong in wikipedia.Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the talk page of that article, by using this article to raise awareness of that specific version of the virus that resembles a Java update, antimalware programmers will try desperately hard to invent an antimalware software that can even fully undo the effects of that specific virus that is much more powerful than the other viruses resembling a Java update. Furthermore, those people will be carefully researching how to fight against that virus putting what they discover about that virus into a scientific journal, then that scientific journal will be able to be used as a source for that article. They will be able to research that virus by typing in the address at the top of this image on specially designated computers that they don't mind corrupting. By deleting that article, you would be causing a permanent problem of there being no long properly written article about that topic to save a temporary problem of it being unsourced. Other people will probably lengthen that article once that scientific journal gets made. Once that article gets deleted, I don't see any other way awareness of that virus could spread so much that it causes antimalware researches to make a scientific journal about that virus creating a sufficiently good source to recreate that deleted article. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of you people who are discussing whether this article ahould be deleted frantically hunting for reliable sources for this article and not just discussing whether it should be deleted? It only takes one reliable source to close the discussion. Blackbombchu (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before dismissing what other experienced editors are saying, perhaps you should consider that you are the one who is not following any of our notability guidelines and giving common incorrect arguments. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable computer virus (actually just malware), written seemingly from personal experience and akin to a guide. Seems like one of the many spoof websites. The importance claim is made, but not backed up by any reliable third party sources. I can only find forum and anti-virus website mentions of malware instances of similar behaviour, although the term doesn't seem consistent. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All it takes is one research group to do a very small bit of fiddling around with the virus by bing searching the website address that shows at the top of the image in the article Java update virus and clicking the link titled "Please Update Java" to verify the information written in that article. They could do that so fast and easily. Typing that website address directly into the bar at the top of the browser blocks taking you to that website. Not having that article is bad for everybody around the world who is trying to rid themselves of very powerful viruses and even affects people who would never read that article. Even if that article exists, most people who benefit from the existence of that article will never have read it or know of its existence but will still be highly benefitted from its existence because that will cause researchers to create a much stronger antivirus program that can fight off even the toughest computer viruses and have that program automatically installed onto the newest computers from the start. The information already in the article is super fast for researchers to verify for themselves and can be done in under 5 minutes once those researchers are notified of the information in that article. The only slow part of researching that virus is learning the computer code for that virus and why having the code be what it is makes it be a virus. The already existing information in the article is really fast to verify but the expansion of that article can be much slower adding extra information that is much slower to research. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like many new users who didn't use WP:AFC and whose first experience is article deletion, you are emotionally invested and have not read our policies and guidelines. What you are saying is using primary sources, doing original research, making the keep case because it is useful and valuable, as well as making Wikipedia a primary source, all of which we don't do. We do not invent articles, we use sources. It takes 1 sentence to summarize how this article does not belong on Wikipedia, because editors can point to a long-standing broadly accepted guideline. Instead, your long replies are your own viewpoint that doesn't match our practices. And while there is nothing wrong with a different view, you haven't shown why yours should take precedence over something broadly accepted by thousands of editors. There are many ways you can inform more people about this, but Wikipedia is not one of them. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a second reference in case you hadn't noticed. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly still haven't read WP:RELIABLE, which explains how some user's video and a forum post are not reliable sources. And we need reliable sources to establish notability. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:52, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK! Only bing searching the url of the Java update virus without the https:// will get you to a link titled "Please Update Java" and that link takes you to the Java update virus and clicking OK will permanently corrupt your computer. It's such a long url. No one is going to click a search result that is the Java update virus without it being on purpose. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The most important reason of all to keep the article Java update virus is not so much to enable people to do a scan that fully gets rid of that virus but rather to educate people having them avoid downloading it in the first place when they get redirected to the webpage for downloading the Java update virus. It will cause practically no one to get tricked into downloading that virus because they will have either read the article themself or been told by a friend who read the article about the fake Java update. Blackbombchu (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that's not a reason at all. That's like saying we need an article on Avoiding being hit by a bus because it will educate people on how not to get hit by a bus. We are an encyclopedia, not a guide. We rely on sources for evidence of notability, not subjective reasoning or claims that it is useful. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extra information that is verifiable has been added to the introduction. The most anyone should even think of doing with this article now is removing only the unsourced information from the article, not deleting the entire article. Even removing the unsorced information should not be done for quite a long time until enough time goes by that there's no hope of any reliable sources for that information being found. Perhaps that information will be removed and then later on, when the article is really well known about, a source for that information will start existing and the same information will get added back into the article later by going to the article's history. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable, per above. Blackbombchu, what you're describing here: Perhaps that information will be removed and then later on, when the article is really well known about, a source for that information will start existing and the same information will get added back into the article later by going to the article's history. is precisely what Wikipedia does not do. To quote WP:NOT: Those ... issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. We do not have articles to raise awareness about unknown issues; we follow the sources, we do not lead them. Writ Keeper⚇♔ 01:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Java update virus is gaining a dangerously low amount of attention. If enough time goes by with it being nominated for deletion, it will get deleted. Please help spread awareness of this article as much as possible because if enough people see that article, lots of indepent reliable sources for it will get added really quickly turning it into a notable article. Maybe somebody could find another Wikipedia article where it's suitable to mention the Java update virus somewhere in that article. Maybe that article can get posting on sharing sites like Facebook, Twitter and other sharing sites, like I have done at https://www.facebook.com/#!/timothy.bahry. I don't see why that should be against Wikipedia's policies. When that link gets clicked, you see the Wikipedia version of that article, not the Facebook version of it. Blackbombchu (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article is headed for deletion not because it has "a dangerously low amount of attention" but because - as you were told when you tried off-wiki canvassing this debate - there is no such thing as the "Java update virus". This is a generic fake alert page, and the reason you can't find reliable sources is that they will never be written. Mogism (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, any good faith I had is now gone. Blatantly asking to "spread awareness"? The user clearly isn't interested in any constructive discussion or following any of our guidelines and has pretty much ignored anything anyone has said. Looking at their contributions, they seem to add links to this article from wherever possible under thinly guised reasons to the point of it becoming disruptive. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. I'm just a beginner and there are so many Project pages discussing the guidelines of Wikipedia. I will never be able to find them all and reading all of those Project pages that discuss policies of how Wikipedia articles should work would take way longer than I have time for. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every single applicable guideline was linked to you. In fact, I linked WP:GNG 3 times. This is more good faith than you will ever likely see towards you at an AfD. GNG is literally 5 bullet points that covers the entirety of basic inclusion criteria. You have had time to edit the article many time, comment in dozens of places, and many times over in this AfD. You certainly had time to read 1 section of a page. At this point I agree with Dialectric. Either you are deliberately misleading us or are unable to understand what we are saying. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that at this point, Blackbombchu's responses are either trolling or incompetence, and until the user demonstrates an understanding of basic wikipedia policies, there is no reason to engage further.Dialectric (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add any links to that article from another article and never plan on doing so because I never trusted myself in the first place to know how to make a good edit. You can click "What links here" on the article Java update virus for proof. I figured that maybe somebody else would know how to do it in a way that makes the article better and only on those articles where information about the Java update virus is suitable to add. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:19, 14 November 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.
PROD disputed by (likely, original was an IP) article creator. Article is about an unreleased game with zero independent (third party), reliable sources mentioning it. Every single source cited is either the developer's website or a website allowing the developer to write an article and his own game. In order to have an Wikipedia article, there needs to be multiple, independent (not the developer or someone involved with him) reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage (not just mentioning it exists). There are approximately a bazillion web sites out there that cover video games, many of which have been deemed reliable sources for Wikipedia in the past. If a number of them ever do articles on this game (and only this game, not just mentioned as part of a round up), or a real print magazine ever takes notice, an argument could be made that it deserves a Wikipedia article. Right now the article is just free advertising on our servers for a personal project. DreamGuy (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't indicate notability and the sources did not either. OSbornarfcontribs. 02:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing the notability threshold of WP:GNG with multiple in-depth reliable secondary sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Given it is in alpha, it is unlikely to receive any coverage just yet if it ever does. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:22, 12 November 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 existing references do not demonstrate that this company is notable. One reference is a dead link. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSFarman (talk • contribs) 14:42, 2 November 2013
Nominator disclaimer I need to disclaim some bias in this: I became aware of a company with a similar name who wants an article in Wikipedia simply because the presence of this other article is causing search-engine problems for the company in question. While that has no bearing in whether this article should be kept or not, it did draw my attention to the article. I did not attempt to do any research about the company "Trackit Solutions" to determine if the company should have an article on Wikipedia, I only looked at the current version of the article to determine of the current version demonstrated that the company is notable. Because it failed that test, I nominated it for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DubaiTrackIt possibilities; some refs that look like they may be useful. Have not verified them as good/valid/notable/reliable, sorry. UN.[1] Bloomberg.[2] Traderag, or blog?[3][4] Newspaper, or blog?[5]
Less useful methinks. Traderag, or blog?[6] Famous BLP?[7] Maybe?[8]
Unrelated helpdesk-software product.[9] There are a *lot* of products and companies with "track-it" or some variation in their name. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's preferred outcome The best outcome would be for someone to research the company and either come out and say it's a non-notable company OR for them to improve the article to the point that the article demonstrates that the company is in fact notable enough to qualify for an article, in which case the article should be kept. If nobody does the research before this AFD closes, then I would recommend "soft deletion" without prejudice of a new article provided that any new article clearly show that the company meets WP:Notability. In no case should "real-world" concerns like how similarly-named companies are having difficulties in search-engine results have any bearing on the decision (I might feel differently if this were a biography of a living person, but it's not). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I researched the *other* end of the problem, trying to find some WP:RS for the UK company that make it WP:NOTEWORTHY enough for the distinguish2 tag, and suggested a fix over on the talkpage. David and/or Julie, take a peek at my suggestion when you have a moment.
As for the Dubai company, the subject of *this* RfC, there is definitely a problem with Notability as the article stands now. I have some industry-insider knowledge, I guess you would call it: Motorola gave them the 'award' because the startup in Dubai is entirely dependent on the RFID-related-product-line that Motorola sells. In other words, the five cites in the DubaiTrackit article at the moment, include four from the COI-encumbered parent-company (in a biz-relationship rather than legal-entity sense of "parent"), and one to TheNewzYouChooseDotNet which is a deadlink. Agree with David that we need somebody to see if there are any non-Motorola-encumbered-mentions of this Dubai corporation. Suggest asking somebody at WikiProjectRFID, or WikiProjectVehicleFleets, or something related? Ping my talkpage if you need anything, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User_talk:94.201.232.130#TrackIT -- they tried to manually remove the AfD tag, which is an implicit vote for keep, albeit not backed by policy. I invited them over here to help with the refs. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 23:31, 10 November 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.
Keep as per criteria: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." and "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels." Obviously they don't apply strictly to the latter it is still important to note that they are signed to Roadrunner Records Some sources: [10] by Triple J, [11], [12] by Alter The Press (Spin Media).
Question: I haven't been able to locate anything to confirm that they did indeed chart as claimed in the article. Has anyone else had more luck? Lankiveil(speak to me) 12:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't know about Billboard but they did make Australia's ARIA charts. ARIA report, see Chartifacts. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:10, 12 November 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 subject is a journeyman television meteorologist. The references do not establish notability to Wikipedia standards, per WP:CREATIVE. WWGB (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meteorologists on local TV stations aren't generally notable, and Becker has no other claims to notability. --Orlady (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage. No major awards. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well i tried my Best to create an article about him. I Just thought he was worthy of an article do to his 30 plus years being a Meteorologist. ACase0000 (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is just sufficient information about him that is notable to pass WP:GNG, though I have not read every paragraph of the policy in detail. I am considering the awards to be of sufficient significance though I have been unable to find secondary sources to confirm them. Despite the (current) numeric trend to say we should delete the article we know this is not an article popularity contest, and I trust the closing admin to study the article and the reference showing the awards, and to consider the article against policy before coming to a conclusion. FiddleFaddle 09:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AFD is not a criticism of the article. The concern is that the subject of the article isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Being on local TV for 3 decades does give a person enough public visibility that they are likely to be covered in other local news media; that kind of coverage does exist for Becker, so he weakly passes the WP:GNG. However, nothing that I've seen indicates the kinds of accomplishments and recognition that are required to make a person notable according to WP:BIO. This is not a criticism of Becker (he did a good job on local TV weather); he just isn't notable enough to be the subject of a stand-alone Wikipedia article. --Orlady (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the award(s) was significant and properly sourced, then I would say "weak keep". And I've seen him on TV around here. — Wyliepedia 05:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The awards are insignificant and minor and the reference for them is a primary one. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:18, 13 November 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.
This does not establish notability independent of Lexx through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Other than one lengthy mention in a book, this character is really only mentioned in passing in reviews for specific episodes or in articles about other roles that the actress has performed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:08, 11 November 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.
Article about a workplace choir that was formed at Bristol Royal Mail Sorting Office to take part in a BBC 2 TV series, The Choir: Sing While You Work. It's the normal practise to redirect or merge articles about reality show participants unless they have a notable career outside of the show. I don't really see how this choir is any different, they released a charity song for download but there's no evidence it charted or had noticeable success. Sionk (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:NMUSIC. Not "reality show participants" - have been a performing choir since formation, nationally and internationally and their work is currently fronting the national, prime-time TV campaign for the Royal Mail. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Choir is unambiguously a reality TV series. And how do they clearly meet any criteria of WP:NMUSIC? Sionk (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Choir was a documentary series and talent competition. The Royal Mail Choir are a choral ensemble. They have continued to perform, [13], [14], [15] nationally and internationally, and have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. See Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Music. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 11:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talent shows aren't documentaries. The choirs were put together for the TV show, they didn't exist beforehand. And the international performance was at a private Post Office event. Sionk (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brief coverage and mentions at best if you access the news sources. Most are about the postal workers from around the country who were picked to feature in the advertising campaign (not singing). Far from clear. It looks like the author was packing the article with news articles to create the impression of in-depth coverage. Sionk (talk) 12:38, 11 November 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.
Article reads more like a user guide to a very specific feature that the iPod has, and falls under WP:NOTGUIDE. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. Maybe I'm being a bit paranoid, but the "also, see this book copyrighted by someone I'm definitely not representing" seems a little suspicious. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—NOTGUIDE/HOWTO, potato/po-tah-to. Whatever this is, it's not a sourced encyclopedia article on a notable topic. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 00:19, 13 November 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.
Redirect to List of Animorphs books. There are a few subscription-only hits on Google news that might be reviews, but I didn't see anything obvious. It looks like you found another intra-wiki fansite. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Animorphs book series (overwrite the redirect, not the Animorphs article). A series of 54 books, very few will justify a standalone article. But all of this content can be merged into a single series article as commonly done. This will be the inaugural book for the new series article, providing space to move the rest of them in. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:42, 12 November 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.
Delete. Plot element of the book series that has no relation to anything else. A redirect to the main article is also acceptable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fictional concept without independent sources outside the fiction. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of species (Animorphs). Mark Arsten (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of species (Animorphs). More suitable to a list of fictional races. Not notable enough for its own article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per NinjaRobotPirate. Will require substantial cut to be practical due to length of article. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:33, 12 November 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.
No significant independent coverage in reliable sources that would indicate passing of WP:MUSICBIO, the few reliable sources (XXL, HipHopDX, Complex) all are 90-95% about Yo Gotti, with DJ Sound only being mentioned a single time in passing, there is no in depth coverage of him as an individual. The rest of the sources are to Discogs, AllMusic database and various blogs. This page has already been speeded a few times, so with an AfD we can have a discussion on whether this DJ/producer is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, which I think not. STATicmessage me! 21:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original and only significant contributor to the article has requested speedy deletion G7. I declined the speedy deletion and explain why on the article's talk page. The editor restored the speedy deletion and we have had a conversation about it. I am leaving the speedy deletion decision at this point to another admin. GBfan 16:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I speedy deleted the near-duplicate article Frayser Click but I think at least one article should get a full deletion discussion. Rmhermen (talk) 21:15, 11 November 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 notability criteria include, "Has won or placed in a major music competition." Is Superstar (UK TV series) a major music competition, and does making it to the final eight constitute 'placing' in it? These are the questions before us. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Superstar looks to be on par with Pop Idol or The X Factor. Finalists of those competitions aren't deemed to be notable just by participation; I don't see why Superstar would be any different. Looking at his credits, he's only had one lead role; WP:ENTERTAINER says that the presumption of notability requires multiple lead roles. Finally, the article cites no secondary sources; all sources are the subject's website or Facebook. —C.Fred (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MUSICBIO criterion #9, although I will admit that the article requires work.--Launchballer 20:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. J 1982 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In horse-racing, "winning" means 1st place, "placing" means second place, and "showing" means third pace. He did appear on national television for 5 episodes. Did this generate significant coverage for him? If it did, did the scope of the coverage go beyond WP:ONEEVENT? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Unless he has additional significant coverage not reflected in the article as of a few minutes ago, I would say delete without prejudice for re-creating an article that clearly demonstrates the subject's notability, with the stipulation that coming in 8th place on this TV show and appearing on that TV show and in promotional materials related to that TV show do not in and of themselves constitute significant coverage of this person except to the extent that they are talking about significant events in his career independent of the show. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Implicit in my recommendation is that because he's only appeared in one major show to date, he's not yet notable. He could easily go on to become notable with some future roles. That's no reason to have an article yet, though: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —C.Fred (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm considering the possibility that his work-to-date may have garnered enough significant coverage to warrant an article but that we do not yet have this coverage listed on the page. The burden of proof is on those who claim he does have notability to demonstrate it, which is why I'm going with "weak delete, without prejudice...". Of course, as his career matures, he will become more "notable" in the Wikipedia sense of the word and may cross the "threshold of notability" if he has not done so already. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have just chastised RealPhanKarin for removing the AfD template on the page, among other things.--Launchballer 09:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An host of edits by various sock puppets have not added any evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 12:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- He has not achieved enough to be notable yet; may be one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 14 November 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.
Delete Fails both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG with no top tier fights or significant coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 17:33, 14 November 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.
MMA fighter with no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA and fails WP:GNG since the only source is a link to his fight record at Sherdog. Papaursa (talk) 19:36, 10 November 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.
Retired MMA fighter with no top tier fights to meet WP:NMMA and who lacks the non-routine coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 19:29, 10 November 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.
This list is too in-depth for a general encyclopedia. Listing every single minor universe is too "plotish", and many of them seem like original research anyway. Multiverse (Marvel Comics), assuming that is an actual notable topic, can cover a few dozen of the more notable ones, but there is no need to list all of them. This was split from that article, so there is no need to merge. TTN (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- excessive fancruft. It's almost entirely unsourced, making it very difficult to determine what is WP:OR. I suspect most of it is. There is no reason to go into so much trivial detail. ReykYO! 22:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep alternate universes play a major kind in DC and Marvel superhero comic books. J 1982 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are no reliable sources given here, which is a real problem. Looking around reveals there might be a few - io9 probably qualifies - but right now I don't see enough to consider it significant coverage. If someone digs around and finds more truly reliable sources, I might change my thinking, but right now I don't see enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 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.
Fails WP:ORG rather plainly, not having received notice outside of the parochial ufology community in violation of WP:FRINGE rules for notability. jps (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources outside Fringe. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage by RS noted above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:00, 16 November 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 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.
This article has sat with a merger proposal and no references for over a month now. The content is very similar to the disambiguation page Psycho, and is already covered by the article Psycho (franchise). Fortdj33 (talk) 18:46, 10 November 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.
Fails WP:BIO. No recognition outside of the WP:FRINGE sources that swirl around belief in ancient astronauts. jps (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any coverage in reliable, independent sources. I found mention only in fringe books. Cullen328Let's discuss it 23:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find reliable sources outside Fringe. The books are obscure and not notable from what I can see in library and user holdings. These kinds of experts best chance for notability is newspaper articles and community involvement around UFO events, but just looks like a fringe writer for fringe readers. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:37, 11 November 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.
Speedy delete - since the main Cindy & Roy article is at AfD and probably isn't going to be kept, this can just safely be cleaned out per speedy deletion criteria Db-a9. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:20, 10 November 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.
This does not establish notability independent of The Dosadi Experiment through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources (those from the previous AfD seem to only mention it in an in-universe sense without anything real world as far as I can tell). Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is also unsourced, and if it hasn't been sourced for nearly a decade, then it is probably not notable. Sportsguy17 18:39, 10 November 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.
I don't think there is any notability here; the references are either mere notices, press releases, or not about the company. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also an AfC version which had been iterating for 2 years from June 2010 without ever passing successfully. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with all IT trainers, this firm has partnerships with the major vendors: these are not in themselves notable. Nor, I think, is the 194th position in a fastest-growing companies list: a classification which says nothing about attained position. While I can find representatives of the firm being quoted in articles such as this (via Highbeam, subscription reqd), I am not seeing anything which amounts to WP:CORPDEPTH coverage of the firm. AllyD (talk) 19:45, 10 November 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.
This person does not meet WP:N and I could only find one mention on Google News. The article is an orphan, and seems to have been created by the author. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any references to this author outside of social networking sites and sales sites. Pburka (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity-press-published writer. No indication of having achieved notability, at least not yet. She lives in my area, but I've not heard of her. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 11 November 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.
No of these links correspond to what is sanctioned in WP:DAB. One goes to French Wikipedia (fr:Fing (informatique)) and two others are hardly ambiguous. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reasonable redirect or dab targets. Pburka (talk) 17:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I'm the author of this article. It contains no useful content. ~AH1(discuss!) 18:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Boleyn (talk) 13:04, 14 November 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-deletion A7. (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST at all, little more than a vanity piece. Ghits don't reveal any WP:RS and what is there is again just self promotion. tutterMouse (talk) 15:20, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedy A7. The article is almost certanily autobiographical and is sourced only to the person's social media entries, with not even a claim to notability. AllyD (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC) [ote also that there have been 3 previous deletions, but with the names inverted. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a candidate for A7 and a salt for both Mathihul Akmal and Akmal Mathihul then, only so many times an article can be speedied. tutterMouse (talk) 16:23, 10 November 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.
Delete A good example of why BLPs should not be created on children except in exceptional circumstances. There are plenty of children who have had leading parts in cinema and on the stage, but that does not define their life or career. Anything to be said about Mr Potter's part in the film can be said in that article, nothing else justifies a biographical article. --AJHingston (talk) 15:34, 10 November 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.
Does not contain any valid link the corresponds to what WP:DAB sanctions. All four links are auxiliary. Codename Lisa (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The capital letters gave a clue I should look at the history. It seems it started life by two single-purpose accounts in 2007 and 2009. The 2007 vintage was one uncited paragraph and an ASCI art diagram for the IEEE 802.11 packet format. Then in 2009 a diagram and two paragraphs were added at the front for the linguistics definition with one external link to paper by a person whose name corresponded to the editor name. No incoming links, so normal searches would seem to suffice, without the need for this page nor its redirector Information Element (disambiguation). W Nowicki (talk) 18:05, 11 November 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.
No evidence of notability. Released one album through Casablanca; the guideline calls for at least two albums. They evidently made a second one, "Back to Nature", but it wasn't released. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's a related article Feel It (Cindy & Roy album). If consensus is to delete this, then that album should be deleted per CSD A9. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find where this duo ever charted or received any in-depth coverage. I see one or two trivial mentions in Billboard along the lines of "so-and-so performed with so-and-so" but other than that there's nothing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:39, 11 November 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.
An article about a single tram, sure it is significant, but no way that it would meet WP:GNG. Much more (verified) information is provided at B-class Melbourne tram, and this is pretty much an overview of the vehicles livery. Liamdavies (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC) Liamdavies (talk) 14:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article indicates that this is a notable public transport vehicle. WWGB (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is there any possibility of merging it to a relevant article? Perhaps a manufacturer, or the aforementioned B-class Melbourne tram? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added a little more info regarding both 2001 and 2002 to B-class Melbourne tram, this article is redundant and should either be (preferably) deleted or redirected. No matter how significant us tram fans find both B1s, 2001 clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG and too much info about it in B-class Melbourne tram would breach WP:NOTDIRECTORY; the info is still out there at Vicsig.Liamdavies (talk) 11:32, 11 November 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.
Fails the basic criteria for the notability of People. It was earlier speedy deleted as A7 and later proposed for deletion but an IP editor removed the PROD, so need community input on this. SMSTalk 12:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I see his organization Students of Pakistan is also AfD. If anything that would be the notable entry and anything about him would fold into it since his primary achievements seem to connect to that organization. --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:59, 10 November 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.
Fails WP:NSOCCER, has not played in a professional league. WWGB (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Berliner AK 07 is the fourth division of German football and is not fully professional per WP:FPL, but even then I cannot find him listed on their main roster: [[17]] (perhaps he is on the U23 team?). The article itself does not report him playing on another professional side. Cannot find sufficient significant coverage on him in English or Japanese to otherwise pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 12 November 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. Consensus favors deletion over retention of the content. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of fictional spacecraft or create Universe of Babylon 5, a dumping ground for all this B5 fancruft. Not independently notable. Deletion is also acceptable, but I suggest creating a catch-all article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unreferenced, including the name. I'm not even sure most of this can be referenced to RS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ES&L 12:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to relist this - but we need to have some form of consensus as to where to merge it to ES&L 12:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources establish notability. There is no appropriate merger target since there is no sourced information to merge. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 13:30, 10 November 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 per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page." There is no primary topic on Sun-hwa page and Sun-hwa is original redirected to the South Korean Singer Han Sunhwa. This is not a correct use of disambiguation pages And it needs to be fixed. User:Quant18 tries to cheat on these voters on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion(see Sun-hwa: Revision history). In my point of view, Sun-hwa (name) is a disambiguation page and needs to move to Sun-hwa page. Then Sun-hwa (name) should be deleted after moving page to the new one Sun-hwa because my reason is that Sun-hwa (name) uncontroversially doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. There are another disambiguation page on Sun Hwa. After this moving, Sun-hwa and Sun Hwa, these two disambiguation pages, will be Repeatable. I think one of those two disambiguation pages will be so Superfluous that it needs to be merged. I strongly suggest that those two pages, Sun-hwa and Sun Hwa, one of them needs to be a disambiguation page And the other should be redirected to the disambiguation one. My conclusion is Sun-hwa (name) page should be deleted after moving. Then, those two disambiguation pages, Sun-hwa and Sun Hwa, one of them needs to be a disambiguation page And the other should be redirected to it. Znppo (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:AGF. I misunderstood what Znppo is trying to do because he first did a cut-and-paste move, and then simultaneously a PROD & a move request on the same page. Unfortunately I jumped the gun in reverting one or the other. I'm still not sure what is going on. Seems Znppo would like to merge Sun Hwa and Sun-hwa (name), but does not wantSun-hwa to redirect to Sun Hwa.
The main issue with a merge is that Sun-hwa (name) is a WP:SETINDEX, while Sun Hwa is a disambig. I'm under the impression that these two types of things are kept on separate pages (e.g. Langley (disambiguation), Langley (surname), and USS Langley). Maybe other editors will come to a consensus that they shouldn't be separate. In that case we'd go ahead and merge them, but then we usually do not delete the history of the merged page in that case. quant18 (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply This Articles for deletion is withdrawn. I suddenly realize there are difference between disambiguation pages and given name pages. User:Quant18 maybe do the correct thing. Sun-hwa (name) is A set index article and Sun Hwa is a disambiguation page. Therefore, Sun-hwa will be redirected to disambiguation page Sun Hwa later by me. Sun-hwa (name) is still a A set index article. Sun Hwais a still disambiguation page. I'm sorry about the mess i made.--Znppo (talk) 17:50, 10 November 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.
No one is as surprised as I am that there are no reliable sources that attest to the notability of this film. Star Wars and R2-D2 are unquestionably notable subjects but their notability is not inherited by the film. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NF. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Wow. Legitimate LucasFilm Star Wars-related release and no good sources. Talk about a Wikipedian geek nightmare :) I went through the first 6 pages of Google hits and have to agree there's almost nothing other than the following [pretty terrible] sources. Unless someone can find better I'd have to agree with nom. --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:48, 10 November 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) 13:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Am The Beast v. Michigan State Police, et al.[edit]
Delete due to lack of notability, and also WP:BLP concerns. The only reason for interest is a mentally ill person's bizarre name change. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Years after the case, it still receives mentions all around the web. While not major mentions, that is enough to conclude that is has been the subject of media attention. Furthermore, it was also mentioned in one full chapter of a book. This serves our readers well, if they wish to read something interesting. If the closing admin thinks otherwise, please userfy instead. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't too notable per WP:GNG and WP:CASES, and there are WP:BLP concerns, seeing as how the entire article is about the exploits of a mentally ill person. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 12:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Might there be some merit to creating an article about the person himself? It looks like he's been involved with quite a few lawsuits. I'll be posting what I've found so far here: [18], [19]. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: I want to keep this so badly I can taste it... but this just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. There might be sources out there that aren't on the internet, so we should definitely keep digging. I'm honestly surprised that there aren't more sources out there on a search, but I think that this probably stems from when it occurred, as it was sort of the early/pre internet era. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's much more offline. People are bound to pay attention to unique cases like this. Even if more sources can't be found as of now, wouldn't keeping this be more beneficial than deleting it? Take it as an interesting tidbit for the curious reader. ☯ BonkersThe Clown\(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 06:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing whatsoever notable about this legal case, Bonkers The Clown. It was promptly thrown out of court, set no precedent, and received no significant coverage in reliable sources about legal matters. It got attention in a novelty book about weird lawsuits, solely because a mentally ill person changed their name to something bizarre. It is a tidbit, but it is not notable, and there are serious BLP concerns here. We don't write articles whose main purpose is to laugh at a mentally ill person's antics. We simply don't. Cullen328Let's discuss it 06:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I admit that I got a good laugh when I first read this in the article cited on United States v. Vampire Nation and then again when I saw that someone wrote and article on it. However, it fails a notability check. Vampire Nation was a high-level case involving the US Court of Appeals that was ruled upon and set some precedent. This is just a low-level case that is completely non-notable if not for its silly name. It would be great for something like Encyclopedia Dramatica. Teemu08 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Whereas it seems that keeps are in the minority, let us discuss it one more week.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article may be interesting, it completely fails WP:CASES. And then there are the considerable BLP issues and the lack of coverage in reliable legal sources. It just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Novusunatalk 11:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the best chance this has is as part of an article about the guy himself, but that seems pretty doubtful, too since the vast majority of hits concern e.g. "wacky case names" or his name -- and none particularly noteworthy. PS: I think I found his personal blog (it's...colorful): http://killobama.blogspot.com/ --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Policy says we can't have it as an article, but it's too funny to get rid of entirely, so I propose that it be moved to userspace as a compromise. Failing that, perhaps Transwiki to Uncyclopedia? ChromaNebula(talk) 14:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as noted many times above, fails notability, WP:CASES and BLP issues. Rather surprised at the relisting, the only "Keep" is from the article's author. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:42, 12 November 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.
WP:CRYSTAL, the only source I could independently find is [20]. First, it is not reliable, second, it is from 2011, third, it does not say that anything is planned, only that experts are considering smth (and not exactly what is in the article). Ymblanter (talk) 10:36, 10 November 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.
Delete - I wouldn't redirect either. There are other songs named "Justify" that are equally non-notable. --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Justify (Scott Stapp song) and redirect to the album. There's no evidence of notability and Justify (song) should go to the disambiguation page, as there's an article Justify (The Rasmus song). Peter James (talk) 17:37, 10 November 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.
Delete I removed the primary and other unreliable sources.[21] Maybe someone can find a bunch of book reviews in commercial databases (ebsco, gale) - but I don't feel compelled to look since the article creator was presumably paid to do that already and didn't find any. I don't think the three existing reliable sources are enough for GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; low notability, and promotional. bobrayner (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; Ron Karr is indeed notable as he and his books have been featured in a number of reputable publications and he has had several TV appearances. In particular, I don't understand why the Negotiator Magazine and CNBC references were deleted. I just added an AOL.com reference. Full disclosure: Ron Karr is a friend and a client of my marketing firm.--TriJenn (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thanks for disclosing your COI. The AOL article/advertorial does not push him over the threshold of WP:ANYBIO or WP:AUTHOR. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Negotiator Magazine is an article by Karr, not about Karr. Likewise CNBC was a Press Release issued by Karr. Anyone can publish things and claim fame based on their own publications. Thus, we depend on sources independent of the subject. Re: AOL.. not sure if that's a legitimate independent news source or a marketing outlet, need more input on that question. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking through the first few pages of Google hits, his notability seems to derive from profiles and self-promotion on the one hand and the NSA on the other (again--just based on the first pages). There's just not enough to go by to establish notability. @TriJenn: if his books have been reviewed/featured extensively in reliable sources it would help his case to find those. Depending on their extent and content, it might end up that the book is notable in its own right. --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:31, 10 November 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.
Great band, nice gear, but there is no reason this cannot be handled in individual sections for the musicians, as is customary for just about every other musician (properly verified of course, not with links to manufacturers' websites). In addition, such lists for drummers especially quickly fall into the NOTDIR category. Strictly speaking the list is a misnomer anyway, since "ZZ Top equipment" is much more than the gear the musicians happen to be using--it should involve the entire PA and backline, the monitoring, the different set-ups for different shows, not to mention the studio equipment (including mixing boards, microphones, microphone pre-amps, cables, monitor speakers, recorders, etc.). Such a list, if it met the promise of the title, would not just be unwieldy, it would be impossible to make. Drmies (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band members' pages. Seems the logical choice. I guess the article would then redirect to ZZ Top. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Darkwind (talk) 06:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging. Also, the nomination's claim that a detailed inventory of their equipment cannot be made seems quite false as the article already points to a source which does exactly that, from the Dunlop Gel guitar picks to the Celestion speakers. I'm so impressed by the sources which are out there for this that I now plan to start a list of guitars and corresponding articles about the most notable instruments such as Billy Gibbons' Pearly Gates. Warden (talk) 09:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:Speedy keep(1) since the nominator proposed "a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted". The nominator is suggesting a merge, not a delete. - tucoxn\talk 09:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per SK 1. Merge discussions can occur on article talk pages. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow. OK, if that many people consecutively want a speedy keep, then I guess I won't stand in their way. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:44, 15 November 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.
Nothing is verifiable - this person appears to be completely non-notable, and there is a possibility that this is a hoax, based on the previous version of this article and the subsequent AfD. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The first and only viewable "reference" doesn't even mention him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This looks like a hoax to me--St. John's University in New York, which is where the article links, doesn't even have a wrestling team (according to the school's website). There's a St. John's U in Minnesota (a division 3 program) but he's not on their wrestling roster either. Even if it's not a hoax, he clearly doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1. Possible hoax, and 2. Even if not a hoax, I can't find anything at all about him. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 07:09, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the two AfDs refer to different poeple.Peter Rehse (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. Both versions were created by the same user, and the subjects of both articles are adoptees from Quezon City, Philippines, who later moved to Rochester, New York. Only the occupations are different: one is a rapper that no one has ever heard of, while the other is a wrestler that no one has ever heard of. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what happens when you can not see the original deleted version. If what you say is true than Speedy delete'.Peter Rehse (talk) 22:17, 11 November 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing WP:GNG with multiple in-depth reliable independent sources. The given ones are primary. I cannot find any sources about this indev game The search results are hard to filter due to the popular title, but there don't see to be any. The game is in development by unknown dev, which makes early coverage unlikely. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:26, 12 November 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.
Delete - Thought it might be possible to save this one and fold the also AfD Rehman Siddiq into it, but there's not really much here to work with. Its notability seems to rely on a web award, nonprofit status, and membership claims. Also, for the time being I've tagged it with COI since it was started and developed by User:Rehmansiddiq. --Rhododendrites (talk) 14:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject to potential future re-creation. There are no reliable news stories about this group, but it could become notable in the future. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 13 November 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. Michig (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reason 4) is essentially advertising, having been created by a paid editor; Reason 8) fails WP:CORPJytdog (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To provide a bit more reasoning, the article's creator, User:SHurley619 has described on his user page how he took on a paid assignment to create this article. It is essentially advertising. I looked at the four sources present in the article; one of them is based off a press release; two are brief paragraphs in a lists of similar companies; one is an interview with one of the founders. I searched google and there is little significant coverage of this company in reliable sources so this fails the notability requirement for companies; the company is clearly interested in social media so there quite a few sites where they are establishing their presence.Jytdog (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a previous article on the same topic (draft here) was deleted under WP:CSD G5. Although it's been rewritten, the new article posted by SHurley619 was likely provided by the same company, which has received two community site bans: first as Morning277, then as Wiki-PR. WP:PROXYING says an editor must have "independent reasons" for posting on behalf of banned editors, and SHurley619 hasn't mentioned any such reasons. —rybec 11:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, I'm not saying the articles are "nearly identical"; the rewriting was thorough. However the Wiki-PR Web site claims the company is based in San Francisco, and the company that hired SHurley619 also says it is in San Francisco, according to what he posted on his user page. —rybec 19:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rybec. This seems like a clear case of admitted paid proxy editing on behalf of a site-banned user. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of notability and suspicion on being created on behalf of a banned user. OSbornarfcontribs. 00:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of notability, beyond the fact that it came from an apparent meatpuppet. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:43, 11 November 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 article is essentially a copy of the Litecoin article, and the main reason for its existence seems to be to promote a non-notable product. Most of the references do not even mention WorldCoin. Smite-Meister (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Copying and repurposing another article's text without attribution is surely a WP:COPYVIO and grounds for deletion in itself? AllyD (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution can easily be added (I have done so). Copying another Wikipedia is fine as far as I know (see this page for more info). Cliff12345 (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any evidence of notability (as noted by OP, the references in the article don't actually talk about Worldcoin), so unless reliable sources can be presented, I think we should delete the article (or perhaps move it to the article incubator). Cliff12345 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is in the process of being revamped and updated to be completely original content. Worldcoin is quite different than Litecoin and should not be lumped together, or considered a copy. It has over 1,273,000 unique transactions and a growing community. It is considered a Litecoin competitor, not a copy of litecoin. The group at #worldcoin on freenode irc is currently going through this article to thoughtfully update it with info that is unique to Worldcoin. Please give us a little time to perform these updates. Thank you, Nathan Gudmunson, Worldcoin Foundation Chair — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudmunsn (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that deletion is the right tack to take with crypto-currencies. While there will likely only be a few left in ten years, the crypto-currency movement is starting to be the subject of numerous papers, even though I haven't found any that reference this particular "coin". I think rather than deleting the different CC pages so that only the "notable" ones survive (which would leave...? Just bitcoin?) but instead creating a page that talks about the movement and merging the different CC articles in to that article. Thoughts?218.85.77.136 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are already pages for this (Cryptocurrency and List of cryptocurrencies). I should note that there are articles for maybe 7 or 8 of the largest cryptocurrencies, i.e. the cryptocurrencies that have had any sort of mention in the news. Cliff12345 (talk) 13:26, 17 November 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 Rename. Rename to The "Hitler Myth" as suggested (I've just done the page move) DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
neologism invented by Ian Kershaw, author of the primary source used in this article, and the source for basically every google hit on the phrase "Hitler Myth". Its a fine theory, (one I probably agree with) but has no notability or traction outside the one guy's works. WP:NOTGaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Would there be merit in creating a subsection in Kershaw's article and redirecting there? I am finding some reviews for some of the works he's written about the subject. I also found this, which is likely a thesis. I can't exactly find whether or not it's a Doctoral thesis (which we could use as a RS) or a Master's thesis (which we can't unless it was published in peer-reviewed journal type place). I'm leaning more towards creating a brief section in Kershaw's article, which would be doable once we remove the huge quotes and summarize a little more. If we find more reviews for Hitler myth (the book) then we could create an article for the book itself and have a subsection for the idea of the myth as a whole since I do agree that this seems to be a term very closely associated with Kershaw. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding quite a few reviews for his book. I'd prefer keeping an article for the concept, but if all else fails we can write an article for the book and create a subsection about this there. The presence of the term in a 1942 book suggests that Kershaw didn't really invent the term, although he certainly popularized it. His works are pretty frequently cited in various works about WWII and Hitler, although I am having a little trouble finding works that predominantly focus on the concept itself. That's sort of the difficulty level of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though as noted above, I'd be perfectly fine with starting a new article about the book itself, which discussed the concept. The concept itself doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources (at least in terms of meaning what this article says it does) outside of reviews of the book, which indicate that it's the book, not the concept, which has sufficient notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The encyclopedic topic would be leader cult, which dates back as far as recorded history goes... I've got no problem with an article on the Kershaw book, which I presume has received more than three significant reviews — but the purported neologism here is unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see now that's a blue link. Cult of personality is a term given currency by Khrushchev to describe the reign of Stalin; there were leader cults dating back to ancient Rome and Egypt, it's a bigger topic than 20th Century Communism... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could actually be talked into a renaming of this piece as Hitler leader cult. That should be sourceable. "Hitler Myth" is a throwaway term used in a book... Carrite (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to The "Hitler Myth", book (effective Rename, indeed Keep). Same conclusion as User:Tokyogirl79. Notable book, concept can be explored in the book article. The original article creator probably didn't know the nuances of the notability rules for a concept vs book article. I just did a quick refactor with a lead section and reception section. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Hitler Myth as per above, there is enough sourced material for an article about the book.--Britannicus (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to The "Hitler Myth". The article is now about the book, which is notable. The full title is The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich, so the article title should probably include the quotation marks to be precise and avoid any POV. It should not include the subtitle (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)). --Boson (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- with the reviews that the book received, it is certainly notable. However, the subject, implied by the article title would not be worth an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to The "Hitler Myth" a article about the book, which seems notable; the theory not so much. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: The article is pretty much just about the book, so a rename makes sense. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:10, 16 November 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) 09:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG. The article has only one independent reliable source, but as per WP:ORG, "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." RJaguar3 | u | t 16:09, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 01:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't looked at the sources, but FYI to anyone who cares: SkillBet is no longer accepting deposits and as far as I know the future of the site is pretty uncertain. --Rhododendrites (talk) 03:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of whether or not it still exists, this is essentially promotion of a non-notable subject. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per DGG. It's possible that a mention of this might be appropriate at Online poker, United States v. Scheinberg, or some other relevant article about the online poker business and its legal issues, but I don't see enough to warrant a separate article about this particular entity. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:13, 17 November 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Monmusu Quest! Chuushou ~Makereba Youjo ni Okasareru~[edit]
A doujin game that doesn't seem to have met the notability threshold. No RS covering it in either English or Japanese. Brainy J~✿~ (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 01:49, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless good Japanese sources are found. I'm not fluent with Japanese so I can't help there but, from an English POV, I can say it doesn't seem the game is notable especially because I haven't found one appropriate source of information (mostly blogs, forums, etc.). Obviously, if the game is sexually oriented, I doubt it's going to get that much widespread attention. Willing to reconsider if Japanese sources are found. In any case, someone can probably make a Japanese article and translate it afterwards. SwisterTwistertalk 22:58, 11 November 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. Despite only a few comments, it's clear that as head of a secondary school he is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 17 November 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. consensus is clear: promotional and not notable DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails to evidence notability. No non-primary sources given, from what I've found, there is no coverage in newspapers/respected websites. Just seems to be an April Fool's day promotion. Seattle (talk) 00:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If good secondary sources are found, it should be added to the main Expedia article. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is viral marketing, not a hoax. Too promotional and far too non-notable for Wikipedia. If it belongs anywhere at all, it belongs in the Expedia article, where it can get a one-sentence summary. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:32, 10 November 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. I think the consensus is that it's real, which was the only objection DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article through the random article button, and something seems fishy here--it only has one source, but Pollex laosi is not mentioned in the abstract, and going on the Zootaxa website and searching for it is futile--there are no results. Additionally, googling the article's title in quotes turns up a whopping 204 results, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors. Something seems fishy here--this seems to be a hoax. Jinkinsontalk to me 00:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asure you it is not a hoax. Please also see [22]. It is a recently described species and the article is not open access, so that is the main reason there are so few hits on google. Ruigeroeland (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (Tentative keep). I've come across more than a few little-known but authoritatively documented species of insects (not to mention birds, reptiles, etc.) that don't have a web presence outside Wikipedia and mirrors. In fact I'm sure you could find hundreds and likely thousands of articles for species that fit the same bill. I'm not inclined to think it's a hoax. The editor looks to make many productive taxonomic contributions. Fibiger is referenced many times here and seems to be understood to be a reliable source -- we just don't have access to it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I left Ruigeroeland (page creator) a message on his talk page. Hopefully he has the document in question and can clarify. --Rhododendrites (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the event that Ruigeroeland is correct and this moth really does exist, I would like to apologize for starting this discussion--I did so because I had recently nominated an actual hoax for deletion, and so I became overly confident in my ability to detect them. Jinkinsontalk to me 02:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all and sorry for removing the Deletion-tag, I was under the impression that the nomination was the work of a vandal, but now see it was a genuine concern. Hope you are now confident it is a real species. Ruigeroeland (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Genuine taxon. Keep. Thanks for your vigilance Jinkinson.Notafly (talk) 10:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The cited paper proposing a revision of the Micronoctuidae is 6 years old, yet Pollex laosi appears in no scientific publications indexed by Google. However, it has been described in a legitimate taxonomic paper, by an author we frequently cite here on Wikipedia. -- 101.119.14.206 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 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 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.
