< 24 November	26 November >

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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingo Air (Cincinnati airline)

[edit]

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

Not really notable and having only one small single-engined aircraft is pretty insignificant, using sex to advertise is unusual but a bit of a one off publicity event with no long term notability MilborneOne (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 22:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of secondary source coverage -- in multiple languages all over the world -- in search for "Flamingo Air" and "Cincinnati", here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure, it's an advertising gimmick, but it's attracted enough coverage in secondary sources to be notable. Lagrange 613 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Being a sex-friendly flight school does not qualify.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 18:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wrote it. Antonio I hate deletion votes Martin loser talk (19:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment due respect but I dont think being created by yourself makes it notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't say that makes it notable, just that that is the reason I vote for it to be kept. I always vote keep on articles I created. To me, it's sort of like the President voting for himself in the elections. Antonio Chick Magnet Martin (loser talk) 21:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Your lack of objectivity borders WP:NPOV issues.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article itself is pretty pathetic but it appears that this is a legit, if gimicky, small charter airline. This article seems to indicate they're planning on adding (or have added; the article is dated) charter flights to Chicago and Detroit. Even if it still hasn't expanded that service yet (WP:ORACLES), it remains a small, 20-year-old, sight-seeing tour company and flight school. That being said, the article does need serious work and cleanup -- _{and the 'defunct airlines' category should either be cited in the article or removed}. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Special

[edit]

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

Non-notable episode or perhaps it should be redirected to List of Christmas television specials Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 22:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Koala15 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a redirect to Regular Show (season 4)#ep88 would be better. Mediran (t • c) 05:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it lacks notability. I would be opposed to redirecting it as many shows have Christmas specials and this seems like a plausible search term for Christmas Special, which is a disambiguation page, where this episode is listed. Go ahead and delete the page. If someone is in favour of creating a redirect, create it after deletion to Christmas Special. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyebase mediasuite

[edit]

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

Unsourced, promotionally-worded article about a software application. I am unable to find any sources. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. - Mr X 21:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Buzzword-heavy and promotional. I don't see any sources, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Software article of unclear notability. Lacks independent RS references. A search did not reveal any significant coverage, though there is the possibility I missed some RS non-English language (German) sources. Created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Trapped in the Closet. Again. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp Lucius

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not a notable fictional character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 21:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resore redirect or delete. Article shouldn't have been recreated in the first place without clearly establishing notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Delete. No sources; not every fictional character needs and article. I looked at previous revisions and the showed just in-universe information. Finealt (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE-redirect back to Trapped in the closet (as resulted in the earlier AFD). This non-notable fictional character also might be mentioned in the R. Kelly article, specially as the character is receiving some limited attention with announcement of Kelly's plans for an expansion of the Trapped in the Closet series. Lacking notability for a separate article we can at least send readers to where they might learn about the character in context to the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 10:43, 29 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 redirect to Trapped in the Closet. Again. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester (Trapped In The Closet)

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable fictional character. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per the earlier AfD. The real question is why User:Affe97! is recreating previously AfD=merged articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per previous AfD. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RE-redirect back to Trapped in the closet (as resulted in the earlier AFD). This non-notable fictional character might be mentioned in related articles, specially as the character is receiving some limited attention with announcement of Kelly's plans for an expansion of the Trapped in the Closet series. Lacking notability for a separate article we can at least send readers to where they might learn about the character in context to the film. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 22:31, 30 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. L Faraone 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful chess

[edit]

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

Article contains no sources or assertion of notability. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article says it was invented this year by some amateurs. Not notable. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 20:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. The name makes searching for sources difficult but the page is entirely unsourced and my attempts to identify sources have proved fruitless. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't even find UNreliable sources for this. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, to say the very least.LM2000 (talk) 09:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks fun. Not notable. Lagrange 613 21:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Brittle heaven (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't help that the English translation "beautiful chess" makes it incredibly difficult to search for - but even after searching through various filters and translations, I can't find anything that suggests this is notable. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia was meant to showcase oddities and things not traditionally covered in Encyclopedia Britannica. Now I could see deleting this article from Britannica but Wikipedia is not harmed by this addition. Wikipedia has articles on every single sexual position and fetish as well as every single episode of South Park, complete with detailed plot descriptions and "Cultural References" that stretch on for pages, so why not have an article on this? Perrier Tyson (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Toccata quarta (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not harmed" is considered an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, as is "look at this other stuff we have". Lagrange 613 17:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Too many rules, too much policy wonkerage, not enough creativity. This young man in Prague has done a lot for chess and should be rewarded not stifled for his creative work.~~ Perrier Tyson (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamental requirement for reliable sourcing is not "too much policy wonkerage". Accusing others of wikilawyering is uncivil. Join Wikijoehead in a good, long head soak. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I´d like to thank user Tyson for defending our small (variation on chess (we really dont know each other). I can see the point, for deletion there is always excuse in some kind of wiki rule, if you want to beat the dog, it is always easy to find the stick. However, mr. Tyson adding commentary about Czech republic really doesnt help, it is not correct in the context of the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijoehead (talk • contribs) 09:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You accused me of being mean, and a "god" by removing your several unwarranted insertions of your no-references article into articles such as mainstream article Chess. Now you accuse others of being wikilawyers and of simply wanting to be abusive. I think you should go soak your head, Wikijoehead. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's no need for uncivil comments by anyone involved on any side of this. As others have said, the variant looks fun, but allowing material not covered by reliable sources is a Pandora's box that can't be opened - it's not an 'excuse' to delete the article - it's arguably Wikipedia's most fundamental policy. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been hearing the phrase "go soak your head" more and more lately. What does it mean? I don't think I'd heard it at all until this year. Perrier Tyson (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RSs. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article creator hasn't offered a single source. It doesn't have to be in English, we all know how to use google translate. It was nice of The Whispering Wind and Yunshui to attempt to do his job for him, but clearly the burden of evidence is on Wikijoehead. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:59, 30 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. L Faraone 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varsity quiz

[edit]

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

Local radio show. No sources, no sign of notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero evidence of notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Levdr1lp / talk 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's as notable as any other high school quiz bowl show on TV. Braydenslv (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Braydenslv[reply]

Delete. The lack of any secondary sources means that the show is not notable. (While WP:OTHERSTUFF tells us not to base the existence of an article on X on the existence of an article on similar topic Y, I do note that other high school quiz bowl articles have secondary sources.) —C.Fred (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress. I will be adding sources in the next few days, but I just wanted to get the basic information down. I'm new to the Wikipedia article creating and managing thing, so please don't delete this article because it's not all there yet. 76.4.229.103 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 26 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. PaJi

[edit]

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

This character has no notability whatsoever to warrant their own page. Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. Deb (talk) 13:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KBruch

[edit]

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

Unsourced article about non-notable software. Fails WP:NSOFTWARE. One of several recently created articles about software developed by KDE. - Mr X 19:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing to indicate notability. (Not sure why you didn't just let the prod run though)--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have to support this for deletion due to it failing WP:NSOFTWARE. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 19:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite finding this and this online I still think that isn't enough to satisfy GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE, no news, no scholars, no specific significance for an encyclopedia. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:23, 25 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. L Faraone 01:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Game no Kanzume Vol. 1

[edit]

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

Non-notable game omnibus. Previous prod declined without comment. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating Game no Kanzume Vol. 2 under the same reasoning. -- Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither article has any in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability of the games. --DAJF (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as not passing WP:GNG with multiple reliable independent in-depth sources. Various game compilation are not notable unless covered independently (WP:NOTINHERITED). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 26 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:22, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Iliev

[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Non-notable youth player who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – has not played at a sufficiently high level or received sufficient coverage. C 679 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFOOTBALL says that the player is notable if he had played in a fully professional league. According to this site, he had only played in the UEFA Youth League, U21 Premier League and U21-EM-Quali, and they all aren't regarded as 'fully professional league', according to this list. Furthermore, the player doesn't have sufficient media coverage to pass GNG. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Fenix down (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL.LM2000 (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – has not played at a high enough level or received sufficient coverage. C 679 09:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dorsey Hall (Miami University)

[edit]

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

Routine hall of residence, with no specially notable architecture or history, and only very local references. DGG ( talk ) 16:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Could be merged into list of university buildings, but no such animal currently exists. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 15:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Can this and the Laws Hall (Miami University) be merged into a single residence hall article? Bearian (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would you want to do that? Laws Hall isn't a dormitory. - Eureka Lott 00:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the university article. I've seen articles on "Buildings of ____ University" or "_____ University campus", so presumably such an article could be put together for Miami. There's some good content here that would be good in such an article, so deletion would be unhelpful, and this wouldn't make a bad redirect anyway. Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not entirely sure it would be that likely of a search term, so I don't see the need to create a redirect. If someone wanted to create one in the future because they saw a need, I would not be opposed, but I think deletion is fine right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. SmartSE (talk) 21:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justbats.com

[edit]

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

Notability not established: yet another online store, with no third-party references at all (the first reference is user-generated content). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Clarkcj12 (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Frankly, it's very tempting to tag this as G11 for unambiguous advertisement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unambiguous advertising, not notable. I placed G11 tag on the article. Alex^{discussion ★} 21:03, 25 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 redirect to Professional diving#HAZMAT diving. L Faraone 01:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sewage diver

[edit]

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

Per WP:DICDEF. Maybe move to Wiktionary, unless substantial content can be added. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 13:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Since more sources have been added. "Sewer diving", I agree, is a better title. The one source linked said that some divers specialized in diving into sewers, etc. However it did not call them "Sewage divers" or give them any other name. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A better title would be Hazardous environment diving, which is the title of the source article, and seems to be a notable topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect, and yes that is my final answer. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assumed this was going to be an obvious delete, but to my surprise I quickly found quite a few reliable sources discussing the article topic in detail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190251/And-thought-bad-job-Indian-sewer-diver-paid-just-3-50-day-plus-bottle-booze-unclog-Delhis-drains.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/meet-mexico-city-official-sewer-diver-article-1.1297295

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/09/09/world/dirtiest-job-in-mexico-sewer-diving/#.UpPOJcTrxyU

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/06/a-dirty-job-in-mexico-city-sewer-diver/

http://world.time.com/2013/03/24/julio-cu-camara-mexico-citys-sewer-diver/

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/01/03/1198949980961.html

Obviously, the article is skeletal at this point and should be expanded. It's a dirty job, but someone could dive in there... Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article could also be changed to 'Sewage Diving', which might be a bit more appropriate and not run afoul of dictionary issues. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Professional diving#HAZMAT diving, to which Sewer diver (originally created as a similar stub) has already been merged. That section treats the topic more fully than this one-sentence "article", and any appropriate additional information can be added there. Only if that section grows too large is a split justified. Deor (talk) 13:19, 26 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 redirected by Gen. Quon to List of Gilligan's Island episodes. (non-admin closure) Ansh6 6 6 19:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Home Sweet Hut

[edit]

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

I did not find any reliable sources focusing on this episode. Fails WP:GNG. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about instead of a pointless AfD we just redirect like it should be.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to, but it's already been PRODed and denied so that's not an option. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 16:15, 25 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. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Villi Bello

[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer or MMA fighter Peter Rehse (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has 2 MMA fights (both losses) and one kickboxing match. Not enough to show he meets WP:NMMA or WP:KICK. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on my search he has a grand total of two MMA matches, a kickboxing bout, and one boxing match. The boxing match was his only victory and there's nothing to show he meets WP:NMMA, WP:KICK, WP:NBOX, or WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VKool

[edit]

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

Not a notable website by the looks of it. I couldn't find any secondary reliable sources and right now the article has none. The article's creator was spamming Wikipedia with links to that website previously, so this looks like a free advertising effort. Atlan (talk) 08:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Article is written according to guidelines of Wikipedia (secondary and notable sources). Wikifan115 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's patently false, the article has only the website it is about as a source. The whois info site and the Alexa ranking are not secondary sources.--Atlan (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both non-notable and promotional. Among the many such listed for deletion from this editor. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple searches (Google, Highbeam, Questia) are turning up nothing about this firm (unlike a car accessory of the name); fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Looks like advertising to me. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 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 no consensus. L Faraone 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Los Angeles

[edit]

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

I understand the idea of "Northwest Los Angeles" geographically, but it's not a phrase or concept that has any bearing in real world usage. Doing a google search for "northwest los angeles" -wiki only gives results relating to a city in Texas. Additionaly, as a life-long resident of the Los Angeles area, I have never heard of the neighborhoods in this article collectively referred to as "northwest Los Angeles". The only citation in the article is on the topic of gentrification in a specific area and makes no mention of the concept of "northwest Los Angeles". I've seen previous versions of LA-district lists on this site and understand why, from an academic perspective, somebody would seek to simplify the classification of LA's patchwork grid, but Wikipedia is not the place to make declarative assertions on what is and isn't an official designation for an area.

Comment - I completed the nomination for 96.40.167.57, and am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can understand the nominator's concern: if "Northwest Los Angeles" has any common meaning today it's probably the northwest San Fernando Valley, not the near-downtown neighborhoods listed in this article. I don't think, however, that this AfD is the way to handle the question. This term is used as part of a large-scale organization of L.A. neighborhoods and is used in a number of templates. Just deleting this article would add to the confusion. A rename might be discussed, but I note that historically the term "Northwest Los Angeles" was used for some area northwest of downtown, per news cites such as [1] and [2]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a way to integrate those into the article, and also into the article on Beverly Boulevard, which the later one appears to refer to. p b p 18:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interesting citations, but like you said they're archaic, and there's no definition for which area they're talking about specifically. Also, nobody refers to the San Fernando Valley as "north" or "northwest" or anything like that, it's just "the valley". PS Thank you very much Ansh666. 96.40.167.57 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article contains absolutely no verification that this is a term in actual use; the article's sole reference does not use the term. And I could find no usage at Google News, except that apparently there was a "Northwest Los Angeles Improvement Association" back in the 1890s. A search of the City of Los Angeles website found nothing. As for the "large-scale organization of L.A. neighborhoods," I see no reason why it can't remain in place, while recognizing that the grouping "Northwest Los Angeles" is something invented for Wikipedia's convenience, rather than a real entity deserving of an article. --MelanieN (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I noticed that the original author of the article was not notified of this discussion. I have notified them as a courtesy. --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Essentially per Arxiloxos. This is an issue for a renaming request, not an AfD. The neighborhoods were grouped together in a template long before the article was created. If this article is deleted, the neighborhoods in that template can't be distributed into other articles, because they are a poor fit to be in other articles (they're not Downtown, they're too far east to be Hollywood, they're too far north and east to be lumped with the Westside, and they're on the wrong side of the river for the Eastside). It's possible that list-index criteria apply here, BTW, which would allay V concerns. As for 96's comment that the use of "Northwest Los Angeles" is archaic, people haven't come up with a better collective name for the area since then, so might as well use it. p b p 18:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the neighborhoods were "grouped together in a template long before this article was created," why can't they stay grouped in that template even if it is deleted? --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every other template has a corresponding article. What happens if this is deleted is we have a number of neighborhoods not grouped by region of the city. Since Los Angeles doesn't link to every neighborhood article, having every neighborhood grouped in a region is important p b p 19:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they be grouped by region of the city without a corresponding article? They were before. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because there really isn't any reason to delete right now. Sources for the name "Northwest Los Angeles" have been found, and even if they hadn't, you could just rename it to something else. I'm surprised at the apparently low value given to consistency among regions p b p 20:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: at the very least, as a rational organizing method, grouping the municipalities in this sector of a huge metro area (which can be referred to in this way), for ease of navigation.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:28, 29 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. L Faraone 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1983)

[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BIO guidelines and lacks WP:RS. It has been tagged as lacking sources and establishment of notability for a year. Smeat75 (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep he is the heir apparent of a pretender. That means, baring him dying before his father, he will be pretender one day. To give context, this would be like saying that the heir-apparent to the throne of an established monarchy was not notable. I'm not necessarily in favour of having someone 174 places down the line of succession to an abolished title being notable, but it seems to me that heir apparents should qualify. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable person, as several reliable sources were added.--Yopie (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per past practice. We have kept royalty, which includes a well-documented pretender and his or her first heir. I see no reason to make an exception here. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was leaning delete until I learned that he will probably inherit a substantial fortune from his father, not just a fantasy title, and so it is likely that he will be notable in the future. (I think there is no inherent notability of pretenders to thrones that haven't existed for almost a century and won't ever exist again). —Kusma (t·c) 23:02, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra, Princess of Leiningen

[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:BIO guidelines, being only noted for being the sister-in-law of Princess Caroline of Monaco. Smeat75 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. reliable sources have been added, documenting her notability as a member of two prominent European families, one by birth, one by marriage: In 1997 she was cited as the most recent of a long line of Royal descendants of Queen Victoria and King Christian IX who has married another descendant of Queen Victoria's. More information can be documented and is likely to be included in this stub from German media coverage of the controversial headship of the House of Leiningen and inheritance of its vast fortune and properties, which turns directly upon the comparison of marriages of her husband and of his elder brother. This article needs time and attention, not deletion. FactStraight (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable person, as several reliable sources were added.--Yopie (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - failry easily meets WP:GNG Squareanimal (talk) 11:26, 29 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of junior colleges in Japan

[edit]

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

The rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE inclusion category for this list is "comprehensive list of junior colleges in Japan that exist today or existed in the past." It provides little additional information, only links to the colleges' articles and their home cities or wards. As of 15 November 2013, all of the articles on the list were included in Category:Japanese junior colleges. Cnilep (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lists can carry information that can't be included in category pages. It already has more useful information than Category:Japanese junior colleges because it lists the location and whether they're women's colleges, though reordering would be good. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is irrelevant because it prohibits 4 categories of article, none of which are remotely similar to this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that those four specific categories are the entirety of indiscriminate information. As the page states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." My thought was that this list is essentially an extensive list; election statistics are, I think, an example rather than a definition of a "long and sprawling list". On the other hand, I am somewhat more persuaded by your argument that the marking of women's colleges may be considered "context and explanation". Cnilep (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. Lists and cats are complementary, the article's content are all blue-links to Wikipedia articles. The list has potential for expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CLN is the guideline. Not indiscriminate, it has clear inclusion criteria and adds information to that provided by a category. Entirely proper use for a list. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reason for deletion articulated, per the above. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 27 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Georg of Hanover

[edit]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources on who he is, position is notable, all the information on the article appears to be encyclopaedic. --The Big Hoof! (talk) 17:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if you ignore the other royal families that he belongs to, he is a Prince of the United Kingdom. That in itself makes him notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per documentation of bio & notability of added sources. FactStraight (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable person, as several reliable sources were added.--Yopie (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is backed up by reliable sources and the position is notable. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:59, 25 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Friederike of Hanover

[edit]

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

This article does not meet WP:BIO guidelines, in that it is about a person who is only noted for being related to various royal personages and lacks WP:RS. It has been tagged as needing sources for verification for two years. Smeat75 (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as noted on thet talk page several reliable sources in different languages have been added to the article documenting the notability (as a potential future queen consort of the Commonwealth Realms) and post-1919 attribution or use of Royal and/or Imperial Highness for Friederike by media and experts in international dynasties. FactStraight (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable person, as several reliable sources were added.--Yopie (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FactStraight. Even if her royal status is not taken into account, it seems that she gained notability when she was discussed in global media as potentially being Charles' future wife. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found that say anything nontrivial about her (hint: not just about who her parents and grandparents are). I don't see how she passes WP:BIO. —Kusma (t·c) 14:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per TonyBallioni. Her mention in two good sources that she could be Charles' future wife is probably enough, although merely being royalty is not sufficient by itself. Bearian (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jujutacular (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Oskar of Prussia (b. 1959)

[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources except to refer to an article in the German wp and does not meet WP:BIO guidelines, being about a person who is only noted for being "sixth in succession" to a non-existent throne. Smeat75 (talk) 05:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the nominator's pointing out that he is 6th in the succession to an abolished throne. This seems close enough to the pretender status for me to count him as notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently notable enough as Master of the Order of Saint John. I don't see any relevance of the fantasy title of 6th in line to whatever nonexistent throne. —Kusma (t·c) 14:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Kusma. Acting as a leader of an order of chivalry could be enough for notability, although merely being royalty is not sufficient, as I've stated elsewhere. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as is mandatory for a WP:BLP with zero sources after a week of AfD. As regards notability, holding fantasy titles doesn't count in the light of WP:GNG, only coverage in reliable sources does. Sandstein 06:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding your first point, not true as none of the material here is contentious. Regarding your second, it isn't a "fantasy title". That's clearly a POV statement. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - His claims to the throne of Germany have as much legal value as mine. —Kusma (t·c) 13:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (1) All material challenged is required to be sourced by the letter of WP:BLP. (2) An AFD is specifically challenging all of the information in an article. (3) The addition of sources to this article has not happened in over a week, and the sources available at the German Wikipedia would not stand to back up this article. Therefore, based on this reasoning the article should be removed promptly as stated by Sandstein. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greenline (Pennsylvania)

[edit]

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

Topic was briefly notable, but is not notable anymore. Article is about a mass transit line that was proposed by an organization in 2008, which never got past the "idea stage".[3] I couldn't find any reliable news sources about the topic other than the two that are already in the article. The organization's website itself simply consists of a home page mentioned that the project never happened. This is one of many citizen-proposed rail projects that never went anywhere, as opposed to projects like Glassboro–Camden Line, which have been in serious development for a while and will likely be built. Subject is possibly worth briefly mentioning in Transportation in Philadelphia but does not warrant to have its own article. –Dream out loud (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Project is still part of the Chester County Planning Commission's Transportation Improvement Inventory for 2013. Nothing has changed in that respect.PTC 6. It is not on Chester County's list of high priorities but intial money has been allocated for it ($300,000). I am fine with deleting it only if that is what concensus agrees to.Oanabay04 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was notable once, even as a proposal, it remains notable. This is an encyclopedia, a permanent work of reference. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that are about projects that never got to be built. I think this still meets WP:GNG. Bhtpbank (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't been able to find many reliable sources on the topic. There's a few sources out there from when it was first proposed, but nothing really since then. If an organization proposed an idea, the media covers it, and then the idea doesn't go anywhere and is never covered by the media again, it would seem as if there is no notability retained there. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- Notability is not temporary, so even if the project never goes forward, it can be judged on the basis of the existing sources. The existing sources are thin, but I believe they cover the subject enough to warrant keeping the article. Jujutacular (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Blitz

[edit]

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

Non-notable sports club. Fails WP:GNG Hack (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amateur club in a minor non-professional league. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding any coverage, appears to be an amateur club. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server for their web page... perhaps they may try another wiki with the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 26 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Franz Wilhelm of Prussia

[edit]

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

This person does not meet WP:BIO biographical notablilty guidelines, being only of note for being far down the line of succession to a non-existent royal throne and having been married to someone far down the line of succession to another abolished throne. I got an edit conflict, which is why it was not "correctly transcluded to the log". Smeat75 (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 25. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 03:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources have been added, documenting his notability as a member of two prominent European families, both of which reigned over imperial great powers into the 20th century. His status as the former consort of the heiress presumptive to the most widely-acknowledged claimant to the tsarship formerly held by the House of Romanov, and as such progenitor of its patriline remains at the center of a controversy surrounding the Line of succession to the former Russian throne. This article needs time and attention, not deletion. FactStraight (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FactStraight. He was the former consort of the heiress presumptive to an abolished title of a major royal house. Just because the title was abolished does not mean that the individuals loose notability. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as notable person, as several reliable sources were added.--Yopie (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 26 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. OCLC does not object to our hosting of this information. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dewey Decimal classes

[edit]

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

The Dewey Decimal Classification system is a copyright work. "All copyright rights in the Dewey Decimal Classification system are owned by OCLC".^[4] It appears the copy of this work in the List of Dewey Decimal classes article is not so unambiguous that it qualifies for WP:CSD#G12 and so I'm using the AFD route. The closest the copyright owner has to what we have here in Wikipedia seems to be the "Thousands Section" of http://www.oclc.org/dewey/resources/summaries.en.html. A comparison of what the OCLC has on their web site vs. what's here shows there are many minor wording changes. Of the 1,010 items listed 612 have identical wording and the remaining 398 items have minor changes to the wording. An example of minor wording changes is 375 Curricula in the DDC is 375 Curriculums on Wikipedia.

The OCLC has released a copy of the work under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0.^[5] There is no evidence the copyright owner has gone through the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials process to release the portion of the database we have in this article into the public domain. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC) --Marc Kupper|talk 03:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When looking for users that may be interested in the AFD I found a prior deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Dewey Decimal System though it's unclear if that discussion was about this list under a different name or if it was an attempt to delete the Dewey Decimal Classification article. I suspect it was the list under an another name. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the following users that either made multiple edits to the list in the past year and/or regular edits to the talk page of the article under AFD and Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification: Capitalismojo, ElKevbo, Gilliam, Joeblakesley, LaMona, Lugia2453, Martin of Sheffield, Merrilee, Nemo bis, Quiddity, Rcsprinter123, Shii, The Transhumanist, Tsinfandel, Verbal. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Ocaasi and Maximilianklein: In case you have some insight to this, via work with WP:OCLC. Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thank you. I realized I messed up a little in that I pointed people to the article under AFD and not the discussion. I've always found the AFD hatnotice to be confusing in terms of realizing it contains a link to the discussion. I'm mulling over if I should go back let at least the OCLC people know where the discussion is. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Kupper: Small note that you/we utilized the WP:MENTION function just by linking their usernames here (plus a 4tilde signature, which is currently required to trigger a Mention-Notification). So all is well. And thanks for the cohesive summary and clear process, that is allowing us to straighten this out once and for all! :) –Quiddity (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is another page that lists the Dewey classes at this same level of detail: Comparison_of_Dewey_and_Library_of_Congress_subject_classification LaMona (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the copyvio?

[edit]

An editor left a message on my talk page asking "What is the copyvio?" I realized that may not be clear from what I posted above. The Dewey Decimal Classification list has always been copyright. See the Dewey Decimal Classification article for some of the history about this. Generally, lists and directories have not been subject to copyright. For example, apparently it's allowed to make a copy of a phone book. The legal concept of "Sweat of the brow" was developed out of the litigation resulting from some early copying efforts. It appears the Dewey Decimal system is a "Sweat of the brow" work though it appears to just be a list of numbers and words or short phrases. 61% of the Wikipedia version of the list is a verbatim word-for-word copy of OCLC's list. The remaining 39% is a copy of OCLC's list with minor wording changes.

On Wikipedia we are not allowed to use even small portions of copyright works unless it's a direct and attributed quote applicable to the context of that article. This is covered under Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Generally, I would have done a speedy-delete under WP:CSD#G12 but Talk:List of Dewey Decimal classes has years of people wondering "isn't this list copyright?" and so I decided to use the AFD route to give those who want to keep a list a forum to post why/how we can keep this on Wikipedia. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Keep, possibly change? Thanks for the notification. I agree that the most recent version of the Dewey system is copyrighted, but there also older versions out of copyright. It seems like something could be done to preserve the article. I'm not a copyright law expert but in principle I think the subject of the article is notable. Shii (tock) 04:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. We may be able to use a copy that's 75 years old. The section about computers and such may be a bit thin. I was thinking the only fix was to only comment on the ten main divisions and to make that part of the main Dewey article. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The actual copyright issue here is Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. The Dewey Decimal System is a creative list. That said, it is possible to use a public domain version. I don't think giving outdated information is in the best interest of our readers especially since it cannot be fixed due to copyright problems. MER-C 06:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would moving it to project namespace help solve the issue, and retain it as a potentially-useful list for editors? (In the same way that we keep Wikipedia:Outline of Roget's Thesaurus). –Quiddity (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a use would be an acceptable use of non-free content because it replaces the original market role of the original copyrighted media (before you ask, the reasoning is the same). I have no objections to including a PD version in project space with an appropriate "don't update this" disclaimer. MER-C 10:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was too conservative. I agree with Nyttend's reasoning that this meets WP:NFCC. Keep, but don't include anything after the decimal point to avoid replacing the market role of the work. MER-C 13:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SOMETHING here. I like the idea of returning to an out-of-copyright version, because the idea of independently recreating descriptions of everything seems unworkable. If we can't find a way to do this in line with copyright, then we'll just have to link to it as an external reference, which would be a bit of a loss and so I recommend it only if we are unable to keep something reasonable in mainspace due to copyright. Jclemens (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could the discussion be more legally formal? What are the relevant limitations and exceptions to consider? Besides that, I think a copy in an/the article is good, and, if necessary, an out-of-copyright version would be fine. If I go to an article on the DDS, I want to see in reasonable detail how the subject areas are arranged. An older version provides that. I don't want too much detail. But perhaps someone could write to the OCLC and ask for permission to use a suitable version of the system categories?Tsinfandel (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TLDR summary: we're using only a tiny portion of the copyrighted work, similar to what scholarly authors do frequently without permission, and it passes our nonfree content criteria. Check something such as Zins, Chaim, and Plácida L.V.A.C. Santos. "Mapping the Knowledge Covered by Library Classification Systems." Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62.5 (2011): 877-901. DOI: 10.1002/asi. Although they explore in detail the contents of the various DDC classes (and UDC and LC), and Zins and Santos never say anything like "Used by permission"; they mention the fact that it's copyrighted by OCLC, but in precisely the same way they mention the fact that their own proposed classification system is copyrighted by Zins. Nothing of "Used by permission" or anything like that, which is always required for something like this if it replaces the market role of the original or otherwise represents an unfair use of a copyrighted work. Like them, we are providing an encyclopedic discussion of the copyrighted work: we are nowhere near attempting to replace it in any sense, and because we are discussing the creative work itself, we (like Z&S, and tons of other authors who have examined the source itself) we are making a completely fair use of the copyrightable elements. This is definitely an encyclopedic topic, and it qualifies under the NFCC. Let's look at the ten points over there:

No free equivalent: since we're discussing the text itself, there's no way to replace it. This is basically the textual equivalent of images such as File:The Falling Man.jpg being used in the The Falling Man article. Since classification standards change, providing a PD-1923 edition would be downright harmful, since users might consult our list and be confused because of differences between it and current classification standards.
Respect for commercial opportunities: really basic guides to DDC, such as this, are given away by lots of libraries. OCLC, or people acting by their permission, publish full book-size discussions of how to classify books according to DDC, and reproducing that to a substantial extent is what would be problematic. Nobody sells a simple thing like this that's only good for helping readers find works on topics of their choice, and librarians aren't going to use a stripped-down thing like our list to classify a book.
Minimal usage (number of items and extent of use): if we discuss only some of them, we have a glaring hole in the discussion. What good is a list of DDC that only gives half, or a quarter, or whatever of the entries? Meanwhile, for extent of use, we're only giving the extremely basic descriptions for the various classes. We're already obeying the extent of use criterion by giving a kind of document that's useful only for readers (to whom it's already given for free) instead of the extensive editions that are sold to libraries and comparable institutions.
Previous publication: obviously it's been published extensively for many years
Content: this is a topic that's been discussed in innumerable scholarly publications for over a century; it's definitely encyclopedic.
Media-specific policy: really not applicable here
One-article minimum: it's text in an article
Contextual significance: we can't understand much about how DDC classifies works without being shown the basics of their classification
Restrictions on location: this is only being used in article namespace
Image description page: not applicable

With all that being said, there's no policy-based or legally-based good reason to get rid of the current information. Nyttend (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I raised the issue of copyright initially here on WP:templates. this led to further discussions on Dewey Decimal Classification, User:Merrillee and here. The last is particularly interesting, it shows the active involvement of OCLC in the Wikipedia project. The legal action against the hotel was due to trademark infringment, not use of the copyrighted schedules. As has been pointed out above, the thousand divisions have been freely published and copied for many years with Forest Press' and OCLC's knowledge. Since OCLC are cooperating with Wikipedia and we have some editors who are in contact with OCLC (user:Merrilee and user:Ocaasi) I would suggest asking them to talk to OCLC and report back. Meanwhile do nothing precipitous. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Limit to the thousands or~~ merge to Dewey Decimal Classification. Nyttend raises a good point about using a PD version of the DDC: it could be confusing to readers. I'm not aware of the differences between the PD and current versions of DDC, but if it's anything more than adding a few categories for new technology, there is real possibility of harm. Regardless, it's possible that doing so may not alleviate liability under some state law cause of action per WP:CIL. However, I disagree with Nyttend's argument that we can go along with publications such as Zins, et al. that discuss the DDC presumably without permission on three grounds: (1) academic publications' fair use guidelines are going to be far more liberal than Wikipedia's, and we cannot presume that a legally-sound fair use meets our stricter policies; (2) Zins, et al. presumably engages in in-depth discussion of the categories where they're mentioned, unlike most Wikipedia list articles, and probably unlike what we'll see in this article; and (3) fair use is, as a matter of policy, harmful to Wikipedia. Taking these factors into account, we should exercise greater care in what we include, especially given OCLC's track record of litigiousness with respect to the DDC. The thousands gives us a level of classification where we can engage in the in-depth discussion that would satisfy the transformation consideration in a fair use analysis. At such a level, however, I think we may be at the outer limits for what belongs in a list, and may do better to just merge/redirect to Dewey Decimal Classification. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to one of your points, Mendaliv. I don't know (and right now I don't particularly care) what JASIST's guidelines about fair use are; my point was strictly addressing the legal aspects. I'm basically saying that JASIST isn't going to publish something that's a clear copyright infringement, and major scholars aren't likely to produce something that's a major copyright infringement, and JASIST is a prominent enough publication that OCLC's intellectual property people are definitely aware of it. Given all of those factors, either OCLC thinks it's an appropriate fair use, or they think it's not; and if they think it's a problem, they'd take action either to force their own terms on the authors (at the minimum, some sort of "Used by permission") or force them to take down the article from online subscription services, but it's still available without modifications. I therefore conclude that Z&S either haven't done anything that OCLC finds objectionable, or OCLC did object and lost their lawsuit — either way, Z&S are fine for this article. Finally, I'm wasn't attempting to address your "fair use is harmful to Wikipedia" argument; I went over the NFCC to argue that this is in line with our current fair use criteria. Nyttend (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first and foremost, for the purposes of Wikipedia, while the pure legal aspects are important, we can't look at those in a vacuum given we do operate under a fairly strict internal fair use policy. With respect to looking at how OCLC responds to fair use by Zins, et al., while we can go back and forth about how and why OCLC might behave based on what's been published by someone else, OCLC isn't bound by their own past behavior with respect to other parties. Besides, I've always understood "They probably won't sue us" as not being a valid counter to a copyright concern. In fact, we should expect OCLC to refuse to grant an assurance one way or another on the grounds that the fluidity of any Wikipedia article would make it prohibitively expensive and detrimental to its own rights to state what they'll sue over. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The list is already limited to the first thousand, and that is what has been freely published over the years. Merging with Dewey Decimal Classification would not adress the copyright issue one iota, and would put another article at risk. You might also care to consider whether such a combined article would be too long and subject to WP:SPLIT. I would therefore respectfully suggest to you that taking the first clause of your first sentence amounts to an agreement to keep the status quo. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken my proposal to keep to the thousands in light of this, and now suggest we merge/redirect to the main DDC article. I realized that part of the issue is we're just publishing a mere list of broad categories without more commentary or discussion of those categories. This is definitely concerning from a liability standpoint, even if OCLC has broadly allowed it elsewhere in the past (OCLC is not estopped from pursuing claims against one party when they haven't pursued them against other parties in the past). Furthermore, it may impinge upon WP:NOTDIRECTORY as written: list articles need to have more than a mere ordered list of entries. Until such a time that someone actually goes though and thoroughly discusses the entries in a manner greater than just listing the DDC entries, we're probably outside of fair use and outside of encyclopedic content. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Nyttend. Only Wikipedians seem to really understand copyright law. Then in doing so, they make the massive assumption that the copyright holder (often blissfully ignorant) will be totally negative towards WP when actually they would be more than happy to reword their copyright statement, so it benefits all parties. Time has moved on, WP is no longer little; having a good coverage in WP is a hugh commercial advantage. We talk from strength- so lets not act in weakness.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 13:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm kind of "meh" because I don't find the list of classes terribly useful, although it is somewhat interesting that there are links from some of the classes to Wikipedia pages. Since we have contacts with the copyright owner, we should let the owner decide if it considers this a copyright violation. I'd be more likely to want it taken down for reasons of utility than a question of copyright. I don't know how often the main classes change these days, but any such list needs to be kept up to date; the main article points to the online version, which can be assumed to be current. As for comments above, I agree that 1) with Dewey as linked data the CC license makes the copyright clear 2) the Dewey summaries have been made openly available for a very long time 3) using an out of copyright edition would not be useful -- much has changed. 1922: 684 was "Carriage and cabinet making"; today: 684 is "Furnishings and home workshops". Not to mention that in the 1922 edition (the most recent out-of-copyright edition) Dewey was using his goofy reformed spelling: Medicin, Bilding. LaMona (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as part of our Wikipedia Library partnership with OCLC, I've spoken with the head of the Dewey Department. They made clear to me that the Dewey numbers themselves are free for reuse. We could put them on individual articles, and I don't see how it's any different to have a list of them. It's only the access to their paid website, and their detailed notes associated with numbers that requires a license. Incidentally, OCLC is also quite interested in changing the entire copyright on Dewey to CC-BY. If I can help clarify this with a letter from Dewey I'd be happy to arrange that. Best, Ocaasi^{t | c} 17:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do contact the OCLC so that this list is not in legal limbo. I think this is an important and useful article to have. Shii (tock) 18:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Second that. I think that would be really cool, and think we could do a lot if the entire classification were freely licensed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very brief summary-- I agree if we reprinted the many hundred pages of the full classification it would be copyvio. But this is a small extract, and appropriate content. Nobody would buy the actual classification to have just tis, and nobody who needed the actual classification would be able to use this. Therewould be a point in having the sketches of earlier versions also, as it shows the trends in the aspects of civilization reflected by books in american libraries. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The OCLC has summaries of their database that they call "The Ten Main Classes", "The Hundred Divisions" and "The Thousand Sections" posted on line here. These summaries are copyright. The Wikipedia article up for AFD is a near word-for-word WP:COPYVIO of all three summaries with the latter two merged into a single list on the Wikipedia page. I'm not sure we can say it's allowed on Wikipedia because the summary is a small portion of the full database. OCLC's summary itself is copyright. Claiming the list is a small, and usable, subset of the main database would be like removing the trunk and 1000 main branches of a tree, leaving just small twigs and leaves, and saying we have not copied the main part of the tree and so we are ok.

If we wanted to show a small portion of their database it would make more sense to show something like this:

700 Arts & recreation (this is one of The Ten Main Classes)^[6]
790 Sports, games & entertainment (this is one of The Hundred Divisions)^[7]
791 Public performances (this is one of The Thousand Sections)^[8]
791.4 Motion pictures, radio, television^[9]
791.43 Motion pictures^[10]
791.437 Films^[11]
791.4372 Single films^[12]
791.4375 Two or more films^[13]

A library would file a DVD containing a single feature film under 791.4372. A DVD with two or more films, such as the original and a remake, would be filed under 791.4375.

It appears the the OCLC has taken a consistent stance regarding their material in that they want to retain the rights to it. For example, someone at the Oakland Public Library created what they call "Dewey Pictograms".^{[14] and [15]} It's a set of 88 graphic images with most of them also showing Dewey classification codes. If you look at opl_iconposter_final_2006_02.pdf you'll see "ALL COPYRIGHT RIGHTS IN THE DEWEY DECIMAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM ARE OWNED BY OCLC. ARTWORK © SHELBY DESIGNS & ILLUSTRATES" in the fine print on the lower-right margin. The PDF files for each of the 88 pictograms also bears copyright notices.^[16] Thus, while the OCLC allows some "public performance" of their work this does not mean they have released it into the public domain.
While the OCLC people are willing to work with Wikipedia I'm not sure I'd encourage them them to release their summaries into the public domain. The "Ten Main Classes", "Hundred Divisions", and "Thousand Sections" are a core part of their product. Once these are released into the public domain they can't take it back. It'll be free forever. Anyone can then reproduce it, modify it, etc. Wikipedia has a mechanism for hosting some non-public domain content. That process is described at WP:NFCC.

So far, I don't see a clean way to keep the list as there are ways we can document it on Wikipedia without needing to employ WP:NFCC. The list is not as iconic as the The Falling Man image. We can summarize a small portion to show how the Dewey Decimal system works. Documenting the set of 100 or 1000 does not add much to the on-line encyclopedia as it's a system for filing and finding media on physical shelves.. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an example of a hierarchy of the notation similar to your suggestion above in the main article. That is functionally quite different from the page in question, though, and one does not substitute for the other. LaMona (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in full at least at this time. I understand that we could make theoretical arguments here all day, but it has been stated without contradiction that the rightsholder does not object to our hosting the list (and it is not a matter of they might not have noticed the problem). Under those circumstances, we have a complete basis for a fair use as an absolute minimum. There are enough serious copyright infringement issues on this project that we do not have to conjure up theoretical ones that even the rightsholders have disclaimed any interest in pursuing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the issue is if something appears on Wikipedia then it's in the public domain unless it appears that the material is owned by someone else in which case we remove it. It's a bright line standard. A Wikipedia editor writes something and presses [Save Page]. At that instant the material is in the public domain. If a Wikipedia editor copies copyright restricted material into Wikipedia and presses [Save Page] then they have ignored or are taking their chances with the message that's at the top of the edit box which is "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted."

When I wrote the AFD I thought we had some wiggle room from a copyright perspective. In looking at this again I now realize there's none other than that the copy we have is different than the Dewey list for 39% of the entries. A better article title is "An approximation of a list of Dewey Decimal classes." --Marc Kupper|talk 04:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a theoretical issue at all. Sure, OCLC isn't likely to sue WMF, but what happens when a third party relies on our use of it, and then gets sued? This is precisely why fair use is so heavily curtailed on Foundation projects. The project is so strict with fair use precisely because of the issues of reuse. I mean, are we going to have to categorize this article as containing large blocks of fair use text so as to warn people who reuse our content? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion – I suggest someone invite OCLC leadership to join this discussion. Skip Prichard, the president/CEO of the OCLC, can be reached via his bio at http://www.oclc.org/en-US/about/leadership/executives/prichard-skip.html. Michael Panzer, the editor of the Dewey Decimal Classifiation system, can be reached by entering his name in the contact staff search box at http://www.oclc.org/en-US/contacts/oclc-staff-directory.html# The Transhumanist 01:52, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have e-mailed Michael Panzer. With the Thanksgiving this week we may not reach him until next week.

If OCLC decides "it's ok on Wikipedia" then I believe they need to follow Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, which puts their material in the public domain, and we are in the clear. It can't be done via assurances on talk pages. They either put a notice on their web page releasing the content of that page into the public domain or there's a procedure where they can e-mail Wikipedia to put the material we have in the public domain. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:05, 28 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tatarnikov Alexander

[edit]

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

Fails English Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. And even that for artists. SarahStierch (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the industrious addition of this person's biography across multiple Wikipedias (previously speedy-deleted here under the "DiezelSun" title in July under G11 & A7 criteria which seem about right), no evidence found of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, no reliable sources found for "Александр Татарников" xудожник, "Александр Татарников" diezelsun or the Latin transcription of his name. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: cross-wiki spamming. (e.g. 柴油太陽 on zh_wp. ) -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cross wiki spam. Just deleted this article at the Dutch Wikipedia because half of it was translated from this page which has no compatible license. This article looks like a translation as well. (I don't know if this is the original tekst of course but still. Natuur12 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For information, we have just deleted the similar article on the Latin Vicipaedia, principally because there is no independent evidence of notability. Andrew Dalby 16:14, 29 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. This does not rule out recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Dubé

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

as per my previous nomination. fails WP:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT, and WP:GNG. coverage merely confirms her existence. there is no inherent notability attached to being an ambassador LibStar (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there are some hidden sources that I'm unaware of, the subject plainly fails WP:DIPLOMAT. - Mr X 02:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I continue to assert that permanent ambassadors are notable per WP:POLITICIAN, as their positions are plenipotentiary, granting them, at least in theory, power equivalent to heads of state. WP:DIPLOMAT is a worthless criteria, and I'm considering starting a discussion to have it deleted. As an ambassador, she was the subject of significant coverage in reliable (and less-reliable) sources. Some users may claim that this is routine coverage for an ambassador, however I believe that if a position routinely results in significant media coverage, holders of said position are probably notable. [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Pburka (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the coverage you supply is mostly about her making comments as a Canadian official not about her as the subject. this is not indepth coverage to meet WP:BIO. this is like a police/hospital spokesperson making comments in the media, this does not make the spokesperson notable because s/he got mentioned a few times in the press. LibStar (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly any ambassador has the potential to be a valid article topic per WP:DIPLOMAT. However, the mere fact of holding an ambassadorship does not entitle a person to an article that does not make a credible or properly sourced claim that they were a particularly notable ambassador; they're not a class of topic for which a person automatically gets a Wikipedia article just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well said, Bearcat. LibStar (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; sufficient notability to get her past a Wikipedia inclusion rule — be it WP:DIPLOMAT or WP:POLITICIAN — has not actually been demonstrated here. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can write a good article about her. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Canadian ambassadors to Angola I do not see any grounds for notability but things may change in the future so why not maintain the page as a redirect and list the subject at the relevant article along with other Ambassadors?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOW — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Eisenman

[edit]

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

Notability Dwitos079 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)— Dwitos079 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Procedural~~ keep No reason for deletion presented ~~,and this talk page edit suggests nominator is WP:NOTHERE~~. Please present a true reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a reader who usually just looks at pages and reads them. If I see an issue, I make a suggestion. I lost my username for this and made a new one, the attack on me is uncalled for. As for this page, it is a stub on a non-notable person and looks to be self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwitos079 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Dwitos079 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Struck, though the report is on a stale IP. However, the article is sourced as can be, so no change in vote. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Abundant available news and book sources for establishing notability. - Mr X 02:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator would have benefited from following WP:BEFORE, since the most basic Google searches show that she is a notable artist, exhibited and collected at major venues like the Whitney Museum [23] and the Saatchi Gallery [24] and the Jewish Museum [25]]. Some reviews: [26][27][28][29][30] and lots more where that came from. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ets the standard requirements for WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—gallery representation plus two years in Whitney Biennial. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added several reference links to articles in leading art journals (Artforum, Art Monthly). These plus her exhibiting history are sufficient to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 19:37, 25 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. L Faraone 01:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings (E–M)

[edit]

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

per WP:NOTCATALOG Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suitable content for a general purpose encyclopedia. While an individual vehicle's fuel standards are notable within the article on that vehicle, in this form it's neither particularly legible, nor does it have much encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete non-encyclopaedic info. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings (N–S)

[edit]

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

per WP:NOTCATALOG Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suitable content for a general purpose encyclopedia. While an individual vehicle's fuel standards are notable within the article on that vehicle, in this form it's neither particularly legible, nor does it have much encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete non-encyclopaedic info. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This discussion seems to be leaning toward the conclusion that the subject isn't quite notable by our standards (counting the "redirect" vote among that consensus, as per that user's rationale). This does not rule out recreation as a redirect. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Umayal Eswaran

[edit]

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

Although the article has several (mostly primary) sources and links, it does not clearly say why Umayal Eswaran is notable. Most independent coverage is related to her controversial Husband Vijay Eswaran, but notability is not inherited. Grayfell (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note her activities are based in Malaysia and her activities are widely covered in the news media of major Malaysian languages Malay, Chinese and Tamil.Kailasher (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage. Maybe she does good work with the two foundations, has some quotes in that capacity (Forbes[31]) but nothing of significant coverage about Umayal Eswaran. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note her activities are based in Malaysia and her activities are widely covered in the news media of major Malaysian languages Malay, Chinese and Tamil.Kailasher (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is the Head of Taarana a school for disabled which a described as a Pioneering School in Forbes ,a dancer and head of 2 Foundation will help her pass WP:GNG marginally. There is coverage in the regional Malay, Chinese and Tamil language media which is not here.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the spelling of her name in those languages so we can verify if there are reliable sources in Malay, Chinese and Tamil language media that cover this topic in depth? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable with her charity works and classical dancing in Malaysia. The nominator has already in Editor War with another editor at Vijay Eswaran, the subject's husband page over "Awards and accolades" and I have explained my point and reinstated the facts.Hillcountries (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide multiple reliable sources about Umayal Eswaran with significant coverage. Just being someone who dances and does charity work is not notable. Notability is defined by WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war you say? Care to clarify that accusation? What do my edits there have to do with this article? Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to support a BLP. What little notability there is appears to be by association only, which isn't enough for our purposes. If better local sources exist, then post 'em, we can't just assume good sources are out there somewhere, especially for a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:33, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If she is little notable only because of her association, show me the rationale what makes the under mentioned articles of Apple executives notable. Some of them are survived for years. And some of them even don't have any reliable sources at all or very poorly sourced. These are only the tip of the iceberg how there are borderline notable articles survived for years until other wise there is a strong need for them to be deleted either by COI or Witch-Hunt. Those articles are Sina Tamaddon, Craig Federighi, Ellen Hancock, John P. Moon and Phil Schiller.Hillcountries (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERCRAP. Yes, bad articles are out there, and perhaps some of them should also be deleted. This is a place to talk about this article, instead. Grayfell (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have nominated for deletion within FIVE hours after Umayal Eswaran was created, but now nearly TWENTY hours passed after you have come across the articles of Apple executives and you have given your thought by stating WP:OTHERCRAP. Can you elaborate your reasons why you haven't nominated any one of those articles for deletion? Hillcountries (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying I'm pretty fast on the draw? I'll take that as a compliment, thank you. I think you must be confused about how Wikipedia works. If you think those articles should be nominated, please do so, but this page is about Umayal Eswaran. Being hired by a spouse to run a PR outfit is not notable in my estimation. Helping to run a 40-person school, while noble, is also not especially notable. I am moderately confident in my knowledge of Qnet, and I am also moderately knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies on biographies. I am not especially knowledgeable about Apple's corporate hierarchy. If you honestly want to talk about those other articles, do so there, not here. Rather than attacking me, if you really want to improve the article, you might want to add reliable sources to it. Those sources can be in English or any other languages you may know. Grayfell (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't introduce WP:OR on Wikipedia by stating, "Being hired by a spouse to run a PR outfit.....". The Star, New Straight Times and Forbes are wider reach in circulation to establish notability. Since other regional languages of Malaysia especially the Tamil and Malay are significantly limited on internet usage. So we need print media coverage to support. But it will take time. In that case rather than deletion, ((Notability} } tagging will serve the purpose. That will encourage the editors in Malaysia to scan those paper clippings and send to the Wikimedia Commons over the time.Hillcountries (talk) 08:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I think you may be confused about how Wikipedia works. Newspaper clippings should NOT be scanned and sent to Commons. If you try to do that they will be deleted as a copyright violation. Use them as sources. You might find this article useful: Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Again, don't scan newspaper articles and send them to commons. Grayfell (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. But I am not living in Malaysia to do the needful.Hillcountries (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vijay Eswaran as a possible search term, as I couldn't find enough significant coverage that is mainly about her, and notability isn't inherited. While she does appear to head a particular school, we normally only keep heads of particularly significant schools. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:39, 26 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. WP:SNOW — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Eisenman

[edit]

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

Notability Dwitos079 (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)— Dwitos079 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Procedural~~ keep No reason for deletion presented ~~,and this talk page edit suggests nominator is WP:NOTHERE~~. Please present a true reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a reader who usually just looks at pages and reads them. If I see an issue, I make a suggestion. I lost my username for this and made a new one, the attack on me is uncalled for. As for this page, it is a stub on a non-notable person and looks to be self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwitos079 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Dwitos079 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Struck, though the report is on a stale IP. However, the article is sourced as can be, so no change in vote. Nate • (chatter) 01:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Abundant available news and book sources for establishing notability. - Mr X 02:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator would have benefited from following WP:BEFORE, since the most basic Google searches show that she is a notable artist, exhibited and collected at major venues like the Whitney Museum [32] and the Saatchi Gallery [33] and the Jewish Museum [34]]. Some reviews: [35][36][37][38][39] and lots more where that came from. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ets the standard requirements for WP:CREATIVE. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—gallery representation plus two years in Whitney Biennial. Bus stop (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added several reference links to articles in leading art journals (Artforum, Art Monthly). These plus her exhibiting history are sufficient to meet WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 19:37, 25 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 seems easily on the side of deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphine maternity

[edit]

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

Delete, this designer lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and is largely a WP:ONEEVENT issue Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- There is huge global interest in Kate Middleton’s fashion and the brands she wears. There are multiple independent sources cited and since the event the brand has become internationally noticed. David1978S (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN shop that happens to have been patronised by a royal. I do not think we normally accept being a royal warrant holder as conferring notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not one event or just the royal. First page of ghits had this, a year prior to the middleton press about outfitting Angelina Jolie and Halle Berry. I don't know how stellar that site is, but it's just the first page of hits. Search with accents and for the designer name, too. --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not everyone who makes an item of clothing worbn by the Royal family is notable, and here is not ayother basis for notability . DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so what about all of the other press (see above)? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG - there are enough sources to justify at least a stub. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second look. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 19:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. I personally am not of the opinion that being worn by The Duchess of Cambridge and having press surround it makes a particular brand notable. If this article were about some cheap brand that people were shocked that she wore and it got press, I don't think we would say that it inherently makes the brand notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so as I asked DGG, what about all of the other press (see above) that's not connected to the Duchess? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 03:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - most of the delete votes cast thus far still operate under the pretense that the Duchess news is the only news. It's not. So anyone care to add a reason for deletion? --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - I have added further reference to Celebrities that have worn the brand – not just about Kate Middleton~~ David1978S (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Agree with the nominator that the article sources do not meet the requirement at WP:CORPDEPTH and has a one event type feel to it. The company has not received substantial coverage in notable sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copachisa

[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Article contains no sources. Best thing to do would be to remove it until someone takes enough of an interest to find and add sources. CorporateM (Talk) 15:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:53, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find some reliable secondary sources in Spanish such as this [40] and [41]. So perhaps there are more out there. SarahStierch (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am not very experienced regarding the norms at AfD. I am surprised that though the deletion rational says nothing about notability, it keeps coming up in discussions as if it is the only possible reason to delete. However, if the article does not contain anything worth keeping, Original Research, Promotion, etc. seems like valid reasons to simply remove the entire thing. I see now the norm seems to be to stub it to a sentence instead, which means I will also need to watchlist it to prevent the promotional original research from returning. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted it is an unreferenced stub, but the article subject has been covered in sources that comply with WP:GNG, e.g.: 1, 2, 3. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G4 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal blackman

[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Refer to previous deletion discussions here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Blackman (2nd nomination) Extremepro (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Extremepro (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Extremepro (talk) 00:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Extremepro (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Extremepro (talk) 00:42, 25 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Open

[edit]

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no references. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews in Publishers Weekly, Library Journal, Booklist, Kirkus. WSJ (one paragraph). Enough info in the reviews to write article content. Seems to pass WP:NBOOK. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Starred PW review plus others noted above (and I also found brief reviews in the Washington Post[42] & Chicago Sun-Times[43]) = notable. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:11, 25 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. Sidenote: the article has been renamed to Cash value added. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cash surplus value added

[edit]

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

Searches found only uses of the term, and nothing that could possibly flesh this out beyond a dicdef. The fact that this has been untouched since 2006 is inexcusable. No good sources found, WP:WINAD failure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept seems better known as Cash Value Added and there are numerous sources for this such as Performance Measures in Value Management. What's inexcusable here is the failure to follow our deletion process. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ten Pound Hammer's only fault seems to be in nominating the article that was visible instead of fixing the article that should have been there instead, but how can he/she be expected to do otherwise? I cannot blame the nominator for a lack of clairvoyance in determining what the original editor was actually thinking. That others were able to figure it out speaks to their credit, not to TPH's detriment. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

move to cash value added and expand Searching shows that "cash value added" is the normal term (see the seminal paper and this comparison with other methods). I'm inclined to leave no redirect given that we seem to be the promulgator of the far less usual version of the term. Mangoe (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. Clearly Cash Value Added is notable, and this seems to be a synonym. Wikipedia ought to cover the term. There is a need for the article to be harmonised with others especially those on Economic Value Added, Added Value and Value added, inclusion in Value-added (disambiguation) and some discussion of when one measure might be used rather than another, but those are editing matters. --AJHingston (talk) 11:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the move to cash value added to help in further source-searching and discussion. Warden (talk) 12:58, 25 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings (A–D)

[edit]

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

per WP:NOTCATALOG Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suitable content for a general purpose encyclopedia. While an individual vehicle's fuel standards are notable within the article on that vehicle, in this form it's neither particularly legible, nor does it have much encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete non-encyclopaedic info. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a car comparison website. Simply south...... eating lexicological sandwiches for just 7 years 13:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T9 (band)

[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable musical group. I am unable to find any reliable sources. - Mr X 17:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Verges on WP:CSD#G11. pure promotion of band with no indication of notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and written from a promotional POV. ("...the new composition "T9" will appeal to listeners with several mainstream singles.") JSFarman (talk) 21:02, 26 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heffron Drive

[edit]

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

Previously deleted three times, I tagged the article for A7 again which was declined. I still fail to see any claims to importance or significance although I fully appreciate that not all admins interpret this the same way. I am therefore asking the community to decide. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. It meets WP:GNG by having significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as shown by the references at the bottom of the page. See User_talk:Kudpung#Heffron_Drive as well. I still see no reason as to why this would meet A7. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks to pass WP:NMUSIC. Specifically #1, #4, and #6. @Ramaksoud2000: I would suggest axing the tour dates, though. In relative proportion to the rest of the article it makes it look promotional. Unless that tour can itself be shown to be notable (which would be difficult before it even starts), it probably doesn't belong. --Rhododendrites (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a lot of sources to establish notability for the winter tour dates. For the Europe tour dates, they weren't notable, but there were sources confirming them and it would weird leaving one in and not the other. However, if anyone objects, they can remove it and I won't have any qualms about it. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMUSIC and Rhododendrites. I found some additional sources, some of which have been published since this discussion was initiated. http://uinterview.com/news/kendall-schmidt-on-heffron-drive-and-big-time-rush-exclusive-9420 http://www.examiner.com/article/big-time-rush-s-kendall-schmidt-takes-to-the-road-with-heffron-drive[44][45]http://www.examiner.com/article/heffron-drive-ignites-philadelphia-with-a-high-octane-performance (some of which are blacklisted, so I guess that means may be questionable). -- Trevj (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 22:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tanghalang Ateneo

[edit]

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

Non-notable university theater group. Such groups are not inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to pass the GNG. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep After research, this 35 year old theater group passes our general notability guidelines. This is just a sampling of the major press outlets, etc, that have covered the theater and its work: [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] SarahStierch (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SarahStierch. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Keep As noted the theater group is notable enough but the article needs cleaning it doesn't sound like a encyclopedia and sounds like a promotion. The article may need some copy-editing, it seems that the whole article maybe copy-pasted.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sick Love

[edit]

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

Doesn't indicate notability. Laun chba ller 10:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could do with some work, but this release received a reasonable amount of attention in the music press at the time. I'll have a look for sources a little later., 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include but are not limited to the following: [54][55][56][57] SarahStierch (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Allmusic and NME reviews found by User:SarahStierch show that it's notable enough. --Michig (talk) 06:57, 25 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! · ✉ 17:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fraxxon

[edit]

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no references. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm inclined to think that sources might exist for this, but home computing before the internet age (and especially before the PC) is very poorly sampled online. I'm not as familiar with the P2000 as I am with other early systems; were there any magazines that gave regular coverage to the platform and its software? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches of periodical databases turn up no articles associated with this game. No evidence of notability. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little to no reliable sourcing. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:37, 25 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. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clever Lane Development School

[edit]

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

Notability not established for over 5 years, no references. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 15:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We keep schools wth high school streams because experience shows that, with enough research, sources can almost invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a poor tool for finding sources on schools in the Philipines. Very few have much of an Internet presence. We need to avoid systemic bias and encourage local hard-copy and local language sources to be investigated. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since it is a secondary school which is at least verified to exist, and we tend to keep such articles per WP:OUTCOMES. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as normally for high schools. I do not see why this was relisted. DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus for secondary schools of confirmed existence. The name of the school probably obscures the fact that it includes grades 10-12, which is the commonly accepted threshold for autokeeping at AfD. Carrite (talk) 18:54, 25 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of May 2008 UK fuel economy ratings (T–Z)

[edit]

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

per WP:NOTCATALOG Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 16:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 18. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not suitable content for a general purpose encyclopedia. While an individual vehicle's fuel standards are notable within the article on that vehicle, in this form it's neither particularly legible, nor does it have much encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete non-encyclopaedic info. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK--Wikipedia is not the place for lists of statistics with no encyclopedic context. —Noiratsi (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Boilesen

[edit]

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

Article falls afoul of WP:NPERSON and WP:1E; a lot of sources for this guy were wrote on 5 Jan 2010, which was when this man took over from the Opera Software founder. Other than that, next to nothing comes up on Google. ^Myname^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 17:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although not a society butterfly, he has received continuing coverage in the Norwegian media (in addition to encyclopedically useful articles, several things like this come up on the Kvasir search engine), and there are other foreign-language sources that may have been missed. I've added references and information (and joined it to the Russian and Norwegian wikipedia articles via Wikidata). Yngvadottir (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep as CEO of major company. DGG ( talk ) 18:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Lars is the CEO of a company whose primary product has 400 million users world-wide. I think his entry is a useful - and accurate - biographic sketch of interest to people around the world. Lars was an invited speaker at an event we sponsored and his talk about his path to his current position was of great interest to the audience, which included many graduate business students. I suspect, but cannot guarantee, that many went to Wikipedia to research his background. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoundPrarie (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: RoundPrarie (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.

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.