< 27 November	29 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thai inventions and discoveries[edit]

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

I'm not sure what to do with this. As it stands, the list, full of red links and unannotated, provides no information to the reader. It mixes cultural creations and commercial products with supposedly scientific inventions and discoveries, the only one of which seems notable is an under-development HIV vaccine. An informative list may be possible to create (albeit with difficulty, as nationalistic sentiment almost always creeps into such lists), but as it stands, I don't think this article meets the inclusion criteria. Paul_012 (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note relevant AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Filipino inventions and discoveries. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Much red-linking for stuff which I suspect would not meet notability. Entries with blue links are for the most part not inventions or discoveries, and in some case like the HIV stuff, aren't even really Thai based on the information in the main articles. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not convinced there's anything salvagable from the article, but if somebody wants to essentially rewrite it, feel free. - Whpq (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but prune. The topic is notable, as demonstrated by [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. See Scottish inventions and discoveries for an example of how to do such a list properly. Pburka (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup - There are a lot of sources that talk about inventions by Thais, but the article needs to be pruned and improved. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:33, 27 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) 23:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup.LM2000 (talk) 00:51, 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Prayer at Jordan–Hare[edit]

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

This is a regular season college football game with no indication that it's notable more than any other game. The references are some standard sports reporting references, nothing to indicate that this game is notable, and nothing in the article to indicate as much either. I am above others! ^{Leave a message} 21:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as game received far more than the usual sports coverage due to the so-called "immaculate deflection" and last-minute "miracle" win by Auburn. The volume, depth, and variety of reliable sources covering the game speak to the enhanced notability of this game. - Dravecky (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. The depth and breadth of the sourcing should confirm that this was a significant game in American college football. The significance of the game may be enhanced if Auburn manages to win against Alabama in the Iron Bowl. I think the nominator should rethink and then withdraw this nomination. JodyB_talk 02:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By my count, there are 100 independent sources in the article alone. That beats WP:GNG to a pulp.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Heidi Game is here, but it wouldn't be if the game hadn't been shut off by NBC. The Tuck Rule Game is here, but it wouldn't be if the tuck wouldn't have been ruled incomplete. Some games have oddball circumstances that make them notable, and for Auburn, this game was significant, as they would have been out of SEC West contentions with a loss. Plus, nearly 100 sources point to the conclusion that it was a notable game. Ben^Yes? 14:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. I don't think I am above others! watches sports so we'll forgive him or her for this massive blunder. Many analysts have stated that "The Prayer at Jordan-Hare" rivals the "Bluegrass Miracle" as one of the SEC's most exciting games ever, even coach Nick Saban who orchestrated the latter miracle.^[1] In fact The Birmingham News states "the Prayer in Jordan-Hare will forever live in Auburn lore.” and will “stand the test of time as not only one of the biggest plays in school history but also one of the most important.” Fox Sports South called it an “epic finish … setting up an Iron Bowl that will have an unprecedented place in the storied rivalry.” I think we can keep this one. SuperDuperEditor (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tons of sources for this article. buff bills 7701 00:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can the nominator withdraw this or an uninvolved adminSNOW it? JodyB_talk 11:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep. Yeah, I am FLOORED this was nominated for deletion. No offense! This game will be up there with the Kentucky-LSU Bluegrass Miracle from 2002 and the 2013 Iron Bowl last night as very notable finishes. Dwscomet (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep One of the most bizarre finishes to a game I have ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Severreactor (talk • contribs) 21:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (again) To add to my previous comment: at this point in time, the game is very significant due to the fact of Kick Bama Kick, and Auburn wouldn't be in the SEC Championship without this game (Prayer at J–H) occurring. I think we've reached a unanimous consensus on this matter, have we not? Ben^Yes? 03:45, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 16:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Daws[edit]

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

Artist who just hasn't garnered significant coverage, IMO -- and this is one of these cases in which it's apparent someone dug up everything there is to dig up. Only coverage even close to GNG are two superficial articles by the same local journalist. The rest are local awards (runner-up, honorable mention, etc. in some cases). The NYT piece isn't about him, but rather how someone found a gold-masquerading-as-copper penny he put into circulation. This [10] absurdly strained attempt to tie the subject to one of the great works of cinema ever is what caught my eye -- embarrassing, really. Oh wait -- hold the presses -- now there's some real competition for the award for most strained attempt to find notability by association [11].EEng (talk) 21:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. EEng (talk)Nomination withdrawn (see below).

RE: I wrote the Daws article. I thought those connections were legitimate; Daws has been influenced by Koons, and his video Bicycle Thief was an homage/reference to the film. Naturally, if the community feels they are illegitimate then by all means they should come down. Also, the Pollock-Krasner Award is an international award. The other awards are prestigious as well, despite being Northwest awards. And no, the NYT article was not about him, but it was about his work.

I still contend that Daws is a notable American artist, and I don't think the article should come down entirely. -Jim Muse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.206.152 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article refers to a "Pollock-Krasner Foundation Grant" and from the Foundation's website it appears that something like 100 (literally) artists received one (though I'm unclear whether that's this year or over many years). The notability test as given at WP:ARTIST is

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I don't see anything in the article or sources that comes even close to meeting any of those. It's one of the failings of the AFC process that people get drawn into spending large amounts of time on an article before anyone gives them a clue about notability issues. EEng (talk) 23:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple articles in major newspapers are non-trivial RSed coverage. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage other editors to review these three articles, two of which are by the same local writer [12] (400 words)[13] (90 words) and the other less about Daws than about the person who found his gold penny (Brooklyn Woman Finds Counterfeit Penny Made of Gold). EEng (talk) 10:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source articles listed (selected publication). Have not verified but believe based on titles these are significant coverage. Some are primary like exhibition catalogs but not all, some are reviews or more. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the deletion nomination based on the above. Some of those sources should go in the article, with quotations characterizing the artist and his art. EEng (talk) 14:04, 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 keep. SarahStierch (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Société (restaurant)[edit]

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

only local refs for notability ,which is not enough for a restaurant DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Toronto is the largest city in Canada, and the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. When reliable news sources in large metro cities report heavily upon restaurants over a period of time, the topic meets GNG. Source examples include: Toronto Star, Post City Magazines, National Post (1), National Post (2). Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Novel[edit]

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

Original research. None of the cited sources contains the phrase "parallel novel" nor could I find the phrase in a search of the Oxford Reference database, which searches hundreds of scholarly publications like dictionaries of literary terms. Aside from Wikipedia, the top Google hit for this phrase is the West Milford Township Library. There is usefulness in such a list, but we cannot create a phrase to contain this concept that is not used in academia or does not have widespread popular usage. Gamaliel (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does seem to have some legs. I found a mention of it in a newspaper and I'm getting quite a few book hits that mention it, such as in this Jane Austen book and in the first paragraph here. There's also a mention in this 2004 Dictionary of American Young Adult Fiction, which describes Ender's Shadow as a parallel novel. (OSC also describes it as such, and the book was published back in the late 90s.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept is notable (I see 1,5k Google Books hits for the term). That said, I wasn't able to locate any source which discuss the topic in depth or offered a definition. Ping User:DGG so he can shake his head here. Here's a dissertation using this term, for a quick reliable source. Hopefully it even defines the term (didn't see the link for full text, though). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find this dissertation in the ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. I suspect this text is talking about an entirely different phenomenon, as it concludes "the enthusiasm of parallel novel faded away after 1919." Perhaps it is a translation issue. Gamaliel (talk) 17:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The concept is familiar, but I need to consult about the terminology. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's an aversion against the narrative strategy of fan fiction among critics and so when a serious author adapts a classic book following a parallel plot there is little tolerance to call it fan fiction so they invented a new word to allow in certain works for serious consideration. It has some common use such as [14]. I don't think it's well defined or often used but probably worth keeping. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple academic & other refs ^[2] ^[3]^[4] ^[5] and another 3 or 4 phd theses. I've just gotten started. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

^ Gribble, Andrew (November 25, 2013). "'Big Difference' between Bluegrass Miracle and Auburn's Miracle at Jordan-Hare, Alabama coach Nick Saban says". AL.com. Retrieved November 29, 2013.
^ "Grendel": John Gardner's reinvention of the "Beowulf" saga Hiortdahl, Sandra M.. The Catholic University of America, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2008. 3310024abstract
^ Lawrence Durrell's 'Justine': Missing Alexandria; The Alexandria of the novel was an exotic city of constant interactions between cultures and religions Lagnado, Lucette. Wall Street Journal (Online) [New York, N.Y] 20 July 2013: [http://search.proquest.com/docview/1403389949/1421A673DB9388827B7/62?accountid=35635
^ "Ender's Shadow" Lawson, John. School Library Journal 45.12 (Dec 1999): 163. [1]
^ Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow: Orson Scott Card's Postmodern School Stories Doyle, Christine; Stewart, Susan Louise. The Lion and the Unicorn 28.2 (Apr 2004): 186-202. [2]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A10) by Wizardman. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CAPABILITY, ABILITY AND COMPETENCE[edit]

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

Essay. Duplicates information on other pages such as Competence (human resources). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it as a speedy since it duplicates several pages without actually adding anything to them. It's a personal essay that while interesting, is not suitable for an article. No amount of re-writing would make it into a proper WP article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:34, 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 8.1[edit]

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

Per Talk:Windows_8#Separate_article_for_Windows_8.1, Windows 8.1 is treated as a service pack like Windows 7, Vista etc. It's specially for those users who find difficult for operating Windows 8, just treated as an upgrade. Also per WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO, Wikipedia is not a changeloga nor a random list of miscellany items. Himanis Das (Talk, Facebook me, Tweet me) 15:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. However, I strongly support that if this article is kept, it's included in this article that 2023 is the end of this version's lifecycle. We know that:
- Windows XP has 2014 as its end
- Windows Vista has 2017
- Windows 7 has 2020
- Windows 8 has 2023

I have a big concern that people will think that Windows 8.1 has a later date for the end of its lifecycle. This article must emphasize the fact that this is only a service pack of Windows 8, and it has the same year, 2023, for the end of its lifecycle. Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a subarticle of Windows 8. The subarticle allows us to go into more detail on 8.1, and is not a changelog or random list. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Via consensus, it was decided THREE TIMES (first, second, third) to NOT create a Windows 8.1 article, and then someone went and created it anyway. This article should be swiftly removed. 87Fan (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Windows 8 article is way too long to cover 8.1 in a proper and in-depth manner, and sub-articles are an accepted practice. Consensus can change, and 8.1 is also very different from previous "service packs" for past Windows versions (which, aside from XP SP2, were usually just a collection of relatively minor patches). ViperSnake151 Talk 17:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main issue here is WP:GNG - whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are thousands and thousands of articles to establish that this topic easily means GNG. In fact, there are so many, I won't even bother listing them here. The other arguments invoked by the OP are based on apparent misunderstanding of Wikipedia policies and the AfD process in general. So I won't bother explaining how the article does not violate WP:NOTCHANGELOG and WP:IINFO because it does not matter. Articles about notable topics that can be improved through the normal editing process are not supposed to be deleted. Instead, they're supposed to be improved through the normal editing process. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anyone actually think Windows 8.1 should be a red link? The present material amply justifies an article on the topic. Sometimes it is editorially sensible to handle two "notable" topics in a single article. However, in this case the relevant material is far too long to be handled well in one article. Thincat (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hello, everyone. Truth to be told, this article is problematic, ill-advised, badly written and created against consensus. Its subject does not have due weight and its existence potentially gives equal validity to a point of view that is not just that valid. In an ideal Wikipedia, this article should never have been written.

Yet, it is written and fulfills the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia that is notability and not being a fork. It should be pruned, heavily edited, cleaned up and proofread, but cannot be deleted. There will be content dispute, dispute resolution, edit war, spam, anti-Microsoft hate-inspired vandalism and perhaps a feeling that our friend ViperSnake151 held zero value for the community's advice the he voluntarily sought, but none of these are reasons enough to delete it. Let's face it: I knew this going to happen; that's why I prevented Windows 8.0's screenshot from being deleted.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's notable enough to be included. Period. Yes, I think some parts of the article should be rewritten/improved, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. Megahmad (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sigh. It's obvious that the article was created against a fairly strong consensus, and it's a bit pathetic that this happened - it is, however, unsurprising. Still. This is going to be a case of where consensus is trumped by various guidelines, and so, wrongly in my view, we'll be stuck with the article. We'll just be here again if we delete this; maybe next time it would be a good-faith creation, maybe it wouldn't. The only alternative to keeping the article would be fully protecting a redirect; which I don't like the idea of, and it still leaves us open to a less-than-well-informed admin getting involved and super voting or whatever. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (now or in 2023) Come on, guys. This is a sub-code of a temporary iteration of a single operating system. Are you saying keep just because Windows dominates the market? If not delete now, then can we delete after 2023? Squareanimal (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems sufficiently well-sourced to show notability of the subject—the notability of the 8.1 update/upgrade/version/whatever by itself. Without taking into consideration the unfortunately ignored prior consensus, this article doesn't seem like it deserves deletion. — daranz [ t ] 13:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Windows 8.1, as many have suggested above, is certainly notable enough to warrant its own article. With substantial work on the article (a task I'm definitely willing to take on as my schedule frees up) this shouldn't even be an issue, in spite of a discussion months back which many probably had never heard of. I wouldn't call it consensus since there was zero notification whatsoever, so far as I can see, of any of the three discussions of an article split, unless I'm missing something. Jon (aka Blurred203) holler 22:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 8.1 is well-sourced and is in need of an article anyway.ElectroPro (talk) 22:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is notable, and it's an acceptable WP:SPINOUT of the Windows 8 article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons stated above. I strongly support keeping this article. Yes, Windows 8.1 is a significant upgrade to Windows 8. Although it may only be an "update" to Windows 8, the subject is still notable enough to deserve an article of its own. Besides, sometimes, you need a separate article to explain things more thoroughly. People who use Windows 8.1 (like me) would greatly appreciate having a separate article to contain any information that can't be crammed into the Windows 8 article. Also, having a different article makes it easier to find, and locate the information the reader is looking for. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Windows 8.1 is a separate OS version number from Windows 8, was reviewed as a new OS by multiple independent sources, and has so many new features that it's hard to justify calling it just a service pack. Gamer9832 (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Windows 8.1 is a new OS. If each Mac OSX release has its own article then why can't this have one? --71.241.228.106 (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who says they can? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:CFORK. :) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK applies to articles on the same subject, not articles on different subjects. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...and in this case subjects are different. Yeah, exactly. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Any release of a complex operational system like the MS Windows deserves a new specific article. As uses to happen to any windows version, Win8.1 has notability and identity on its own (i.e. new and significant features) for companies, IT professionals, and common users, as well as other versions (8.2, 8.3, .., n.n) will undoubtedly do. Always good to have articles in Wikipedia exploring macro and micro details about each of them (including so those disguised under the term "service pack n", which in essence are a huge amount of very serious and not so much flaws and bugs supposedly fixed). SacredLabyrinth (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This article shows distinct differences in reception. For example, Windows 8 in itself had mixed reviews, while 8.1 had "more positive reception." Longbyte1 (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Windows 8.1 is notable, also a new kernel is more then enough. --Pretty les♀♥, Dark Mistress, talk, 03:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major Windows revisions should have separate articles, not a bullshit "two-in-one" approach taken by the current Windows 8 entry. --Dmitry _{(talk•contibs)} 10:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a major Windows update, and it has been stated that it is not a service pack. Service packs don't do what Windows 8.1 did. Microsoft even advertises for Windows 8.1. Since when have you seen an advertisement for Windows 7 Service Pack 1 or Windows XP Service Pack 3? 173.70.56.206 (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can't see why not. Bluehotel (talk) 16:56, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Evans[edit]

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

Massive love fest for non notable author/musician. This huge piece is based on one good source. Lacks any notable books or albums. No major awards. Lacks any depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. At time of nomination the article suffered from a bombardment of sources trying to make the subject look more notable than he is. Of the 22 sources half are just links to shops. Of the others only one is an independent reliable source that has any good coverage about Evans or his work, A Kirkus review. Others are by him or not reliable sources or don't mention him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are just shops or the do not mention anything about him. Finealt (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reads like a promo, sources of extremely poor quality, and Wikipedia seems to be the only place he exists. Ithinkicahn (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 13:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a bit too promotional for my taste, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were an autobiography. The subject does not seem notable, and my searches uncovered nothing more than trivial mentions or routine stories about book readings and such at local venues. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Best source I could find was Kirkus review which isn't enough. He is probably notable within the the live Spoken Word scene (particularly in the 1990s) but I can't find independent sources that discuss it. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:07, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stages & Stereos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. None of the current sources are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage about the band. A search found nothing better than listings. Band has no charting, gold, major awards or national rotation. Does not pass WP:MUSIC#6 (muliple notable members) as none of the bands members are independently notable. Does not pass WP:MUSIC#7 (prominent representatives) due to the lack of any evidence and there no suggestion anywhere of them being prominent in the article. (Article is a restoration after a soft delete.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is likely just a Garage band. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finealt (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stages_%26_Stereos for deletion discussion. The above posts are ludicrous. Suggesting that a band touring the country in support of major label acts is a "garage band" is counterproductive to this discussion.

Article Worthy Because of notablity of band members, passing WP:MUSIC#6. Members are notable enough to pass.--NArca9 (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lancaster is not independently notable. A simple guest vocal does not make someone notable. Alex Reed is only a touring guitarist and is not independently notable. His claim to notability is dependent on the band he is a member of. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable here. Koala15 (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability to find here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 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 delete. SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Boss[edit]

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

Non notable mixtape. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Koala15 (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. All search results are discographies, passing mentions, blogs, etc. Not even reliably-sourced reviews are apparent. --Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:07, 26 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, buff bills 7701 12:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- I cannot find any reliable sources or any basis for notability.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:43, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WhatsOnStage Awards Results - 2001[edit]

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

List article of awards, lacking independent sources. No evidence of notability. Violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. - Mr X 13:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

- Mr X 13:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:21, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The awards have their own article, Whatsonstage.com Awards. If you think it's not notable and wanted to use that as the basis for nominating these sublists, you should have included that article in this nomination. postdlf (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I considered that, and may still do so. The lists themselves seem clearly non-notable, but the main article may have marginal notability in that the awards are generally mentioned in some reliable sources. - Mr X 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The lists themselves seem clearly non-notable..." That's not a meaningful statement, as the lists are just presentations of information. Further, if the awards as a group have been covered in reliable sources, doesn't that mean WP:LISTN is satisfied here?
The analysis we need to see here is whether a history of award recipients for these particular awards is an appropriate level of detail in our coverage on the presumably notable Whatsonstage.com Awards. If it isn't, then these should be deleted. If it is, then these are proper either as a WP:SPLIT from the main parent article or as informational lists per WP:LISTPURP. 16:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, WP:LISTN seems to provide the best guidance on whether these lists meet our notability requirements. Unless there are reliable sources that discuss each list collectively, then they don't belong as dedicated articles. I was unable to find any such sources, thus my statement: "The lists themselves seem clearly non-notable...". WP:LISTPURP is part of the manual of style so it doesn't really doesn't apply to a deletion discussion. In this case, "notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article" is instructive. - Mr X 16:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the "topic" is Whatsonstage.com Awards. These lists merely separate out the award results by year into separate pages because it's too big to fit in one article. It's nothing more than a history of the awards given. So the analysis you are trying to use is unhelpful here, if not incoherent ("The Foo Awards are notable, but the 2001 Foo Awards are not"). Which is not to say there isn't a good argument for deletion, just that it hasn't been presented yet. postdlf (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the merits of my arguments, but I'm not sure why you think these list would be "too big to fit in one article". These list are only about 2k bytes in size. Articles can easily frow to about 150k bytes before causing server issues. See for example Tony Award for Best Actress in a Play. - Mr X 17:18, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not merge them? postdlf (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have also nominated the main article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whatsonstage.com Awards for deletion. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, if solid sources can be found. - Mr X 17:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of makes a mess of these AFDs; you now have three separate discussions started (including Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WhatsOnStage Award for Best Actor in a Play) for what are all just subdivisions of the same topic. Well, I'll give you this: if the parent article Whatsonstage.com Awards is deleted, all these lists should be as well. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added extra references to the parent article Whatsonstage.com Awards and can add more in order to show its notability. I'm new to wiki editing and thought the most efficient way to present the awards results from the last 13 years would be to have seperate articles (Tony Awards, Oliviers, Oscars do this). I welcome and appreciate any suggestions. Wikibenh (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the results history to the main article Whatsonstage.com Awards now, so I'm happy for these seperate articles to be deleted. Thanks, Ben Wikibenh (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and wikify -- We do not allow Awards categories, and instead expect the awards to be listified as an article. The corollary is that we should keep the awards articles, even for not very notable ones. IN this case, it is obvious to me that many of the recipients are notable, as would be obvious if the appropriate links were made. We might usefully merge them so that one article covers several years. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that we don't allow awards categories? What about Category:Theatre awards and its children? - Mr X 22:53, 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, buff bills 7701 12:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up -- Category:Theatre awards is a category of articles on awards. The normal outcome of a WP:CFD on an award (winners) category - which is what these are - is "listify and delete". It follows that we should keep the related list articles: see WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 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) 00:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tjaša Iris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of an article deleted in 2008; should be reviewed whether it meets the notability guidelines now. Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG sources in the press. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree, passes GNG! SarahStierch (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ...not sure why she's described as "emerging". Judging by the published sources listed at the bottom of the article she has emerged, particularly subsequent to 2008. All the same, clean-up is very much needed because of the uncited claims and non-encyclopedic language. Sionk (talk) 02:10, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation gown[edit]

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

This is an attempt to provide a dictionary definition for something nebulous and infrequently required. Each Coronation gown is different depending on the date, country, and other circumstances, so they do not follow universal codes or follow a standardised pattern, so I can't think of an appropriate redirect target for this - for example, Coronation of the British monarch#Dress covers British coronation robes, but a redirect here would be to ignore other countries and their individual coronation robes. A disambiguation page listing all articles dealing with various coronation traditions might be a possibility, but possibly clunky? It was originally a test page quickly redirected to "Evening gown" but that's not really a fitting target either. Have been doing a bit of looking around but can't really see that there is a "type" of gown widely thought of as a coronation gown, as distinct to evening dresses/ballgowns. Mabalu (talk) 10:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a dictionary definition; it's a WP:STUB. If one wanted to redirect then Category:Coronation_gowns would be an obvious target. There's plenty more to say about notable gowns which don't have their own articles yet and it's all a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we redirect to categories? Wasn't sure if that was allowed, or I would have done it. Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The style of dress worn by women at coronations is an important topic but as pointed out it varies with place and time. There are also vital differences in status - a queen regnant is one thing, the female consort of the ruler may be an active participant or merely an observer, and clothing may reflect that. Then of course there are the other women present in differing roles. I too rather doubt that there is such a thing as a coronation gown as a generic concept - the term would be anachronistic for most British coronations and it would be absurd to suggest that the garment did or did not qualify for inclusion on the arbitrary question of whether the relevant item of dress was styled a gown by contemporaries. I agree with Colonel Warden that this is something that ought to be in Wikipedia and even for the UK this is passed over in Coronation of the British monarch. The only relevant cover I can find in Wikipedia, again for the UK, is in Court uniform and dress in the United Kingdom which does not discuss the monarch/consort at all. Nor would that do as a redirect because it serves only Britain and is not relevant to the dress worn by Josephine at the Coronation of Napoleon I, say. Significantly, in neither that nor the UK examples of Queens Consort does the 'gown' appear important in its own right but was part of the ensemble. There will be plenty of sources out there telling us whether in different cultures special ceremonial garments were worn by women at such events. My guess would be that women will normally wear something based on high status fashionable or customary dress and that the symbolic element will most often be an over-garment such as robe or mantle. It is an article yet to be written. --AJHingston (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did find this book, which seems to write at great length on "coronation gowns" as part of a Texan tradition - further confusing and muddying the question. The idea in itself is encyclopaedic, but the title and conception are problematic - also, coronation dress refers to the state robes for kings and emperors, not just queens and empresses. Mabalu (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation dress, as a topic, does not necessarily apply only to those being crowned. For example, peers of the United Kingdom, and their consorts, wear special dress only at the coronation of their sovereign. The more I think about it the more daunting the topic seems to get right because even for the UK it needs a sound historical understanding of symbols of kingship, knowledge of what was actually done at different periods, and an appreciation of costume history; to extend that globally is a whole other challenge. I am not sure, though, that separating off a topic of 'what queens wear at coronation' makes a great deal of sense out of context unless somebody wants to try. --AJHingston (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see that the article (such as it was) was originally about dress for 'coronation balls or beauty pageants', which like the Moondog Coronation Ball had nothing to do with UK or any other genuine royalty. I see, for example, that there's a Mayor's Coronation Ball which is held annually in Scarborough, Yorkshire, so talk of royalty is missing the point. Whether such balls have any specially remarkable dress seems very doubtful, but at £35 per seat one has to suspect that dress, while smart, will not be anything worth writing an article about. Therefore, Delete seems the correct option, unless we could merge to something like Coronation ball, if any such exists. And by the way, the book about Texan coronation gowns mentioned above is closer to the truth; a few more like that and the topic could even be notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm from me as well. What a thoughtful discussion here and one that I have learned quite a bit from. I think we need a shortish article just summarising the various aspects and also pointing to specific examples. This would link to the more substantial articles. But we don't really seem to have a very good set of articles to link to either. Anyway, if we simply pasted the present AFD discussion into Coronation gown we would improve the article greatly. Thincat (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the discussion at this AfD suggests to me that there is enough material for the article to exist. Clean it up and we should be fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 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 merge to Nextwave. Go for it! SarahStierch (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Corporation©[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nextwave. Not independently notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Nextwave. BOZ (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nextwave. Not independently notable. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:14, 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. Keeping. Feel free to propose merge for it on the talk pages (not through AfD again). SarahStierch (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life Model Decoy[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 09:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems fairly well sourced; and as to future expansion, the comics are ongoing, so new character will be listed as time goes on. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all primary sources, so they have no bearing on notability. It needs reliable, third party sources detailing the topic significantly enough and providing real world information to write an article from an encyclopedic standpoint. Things like lists of related characters are overly in-depth, so they are better suited to Wikia. TTN (talk) 10:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is itself a cookie-cutter imitation. We have numerous articles about this concept including body double, doppelgänger, evil twin, impersonation, look-alike, political decoy, simulacrum, stand-in. LMD is Marvel's standard plot device for this which they routinely use to retcon a character's death. Someone was telling me just this week that Agent Coulson might be an LMD. We therefore have plenty of alternatives to deletion. Warden (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Features of the Marvel Universe. Could be described quite easily there, and it won't have trouble establishing notability. As it stands, all the sources are primary and do nothing toward establishing notability. Nobody disputes that it's a common plot device in fiction, but this particular incarnation of it is not notable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above or merge to S.H.I.E.L.D. BOZ (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Warden. This concept is not only used in comic books but also in movies and television. Sources, other than primary, are available. --Crazy runner (talk) 10:48, 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 Speedy keep per criterion 1 at WP:SK. The nominator has given no rationale for deletion. (non-admin closure) --Jakob (Scream about the things I've broken) 00:16, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Journals[edit]

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

Tagged by IP 108.14.206.175 with no explanation. I am neutral. Ansh6 6 6 06:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

speedy/ procedural Keep no rationale for deletion. Boogerpatrol (talk) 19:27, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 00:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early Flint Punk Scene[edit]

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

Unsourced article lacking any and all evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 04:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete music scene of a minor US city, no evidence of notability for this topic --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personal essay. Maybe I could see this if it came back with sources and demonstrated some kind of notability. As it stands, it looks like this is just going to be nostalgia and unverifiable original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks more like an essay and fails GNG. --Glaisher [talk] 16:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 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. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racing Frogs[edit]

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

Advertisement, not notable and no reliable souces.

Delete. No reliable references, seems to fail WP:GNG quite badly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 20 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:20, 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 redirect to Hellisheiði Power Station. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Geothermal energy exhibition[edit]

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

Propose redirect to Hellisheiði Power Station since this exhibition doesn't seem to have any notability. I had previously redirected it but that has since been reverted. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was important to have this museum included in museums in Iceland. They greet tens of thousands of people every year from all over the world, and they are also working with schools from around the world. It's an important article relating to the use of geothermal energy in Iceland. --Kristjan.petursson (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Kristjan.petursson (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is cheap and easy. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 25 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The two sources can just be put into Hellisheiði Power Station. Finealt (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Merge discussions should not happen at AfD. Discuss merge and redirect on article talk pages. This should have happened WP:BEFORE nomination. ~KvnG 00:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any editor can perform a blank and redirect. If it is disputed, then it can be reverted and discussed on the talk page. If the outcome of the discussion is Merge/Redirect than that can also be done by an editor or they can request a page move. In either case there is no reason to bring this to AfD unless the nominator is asking for deletion which is not the case here. So this is a bit of a misfiling, probably due to inexperience, which is OK as we are all learning. But now you know for the future.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brainy J did redirect. There was no edit summary, no WP:PROD, no merge proposal, no talk page discussion. AfD was the next step. Let's keep the article and if someone still wants to pursue it, they should go back and do the missed steps. ~KvnG 23:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this. Don't even redirect. I just created the redirect Geothermal energy exhibition without the "The" at the start of the title. More people will type that into the search bar. Who searches "The," really? As for this hopeless Article here discussed, it has basically no information so we might as well delete it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:07, 6 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) 02:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annie A-Bomb[edit]

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

Long term unsourced BLP. Obvious COI issues. Not much of a claim to notability. Very little coverage found - these were about it: Philadelphia Weekly, NBC Philadelphia. Michig (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Anna Frangiosa. Not sure it's a COI. It didn't have her real name, Anna Frangiosa, which I just added. Anna Frangiosa is a theater and costume director, Annie A-Bomb is her burlesque stage character. There are additional sources: Philadelphia Inquirer, South Philly Review, City Paper, City Paper, City Paper (Cover story on Anna Frangiosa). Her about page shows a more serious artistic background with additional press coverage of her works. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the coverage is generally very local and much of it is more about the troupe/shows than about Anna Frangiosa/Annie A-Bomb. --Michig (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philly is one of the largest metro areas in the USA so local is a matter of interpretation, plus the amount and quality of sourcing weighs. There is significant coverage to write an article with per WP:WHYN. The coverage of her works is relevant per WP:ARTIST, at least the ones where she played a major role like director, or lead actor. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tend to focus on general notability guidelines about coverage than localization. She's been covered extensively in multiple reliable secondary sources like (many overlap with Green's findings) [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support the renaming to her real name. SarahStierch (talk) 19:55, 26 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, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Green Cardamom and SarahStierch. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:41, 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) 00:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Diseconomies of scale[edit]

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

As others before me have noted, this appears to be original research and synthesis. The only sources offered did not mention the topic. One doctoral dissertation might support it but no published works have been offered to support any of the article's claims. Joja lozzo 01:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has a source, and many more can be found just by Googling. StuRat (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were a couple of references but neither mentioned this topic. One was just a list of holdings - pure synthesis. If there are sources, please provide them. Joja lozzo 02:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of sources does not relieve the OR problem. The article should reflect the sources not the other way around. Joja lozzo 02:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a notable topic covered in many economics textbooks.[24][25][26][27] (If those Google Books links don't work, just look at the first page of Google Books search results.) The information is broadly correct even if not sourced. If there are problems with article content that can be fixed by editing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a standard topic covered in economics textbooks. If the nominator doesn't like the current draft, he may improve it himself per our editing policy. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The articles information is correct and informative. If it were to be deleted Wikipedia would miss a key topic in Microeconomics. Nominator should improve it himself if he is not satisfied with current references/content. Nominator fails to point out any factually incorrect information in the article. 140.184.188.253 (talk) 20:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 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. I don't think enough has changed since the very recent deletion of an article on the same topic to warrant a different outcome. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PWCT[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Programming Without Coding Technology

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

Non-notable software language. reddogsix (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programming Without Coding Technology. Deleted in 2008 & 2010. 220 of ^Borg 03:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page seems to be a cut-and-paste. It started ( I think!) At PWCT (software), then 'moved' to PWCT (programming language), then actually moved 'properly' to PWCT. The original page still exists. 220 of ^Borg 04:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC) corrected pages swapped! 220 of ^Borg 04:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. There is already an open AfD on this article subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language). It looks like the article's creator, User:Msfclipper, decided to try to speedy delete the article that was tanking in the AfD and take an an old version of it to paste up at a new page title with the disingenuous edit summary "Starting the PWCT page on Wikipedia". --McGeddon (talk) 09:30, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Oof! This page started as PWCT (programming language) and was headed for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language). The author of the product and the article, User:Msfclipper aka User:Mahmoud Fayed, moved the article to PWCT (software) and also made a copy at PWCT, which he then marked for speedy deletion. Then User:Reddogsix and User:220 of Borg got involved and that's where it gets hairy. Reddogsix undid the speedy deletion request on PWCT and 220 of Borg replaced all of PWCT (software), including the AfD message, with a redirect to PWCT, which he AfD'ed here. What should have happened is that the copy at PWCT should have been speedy deleted and this AfD should not have opened. Msnicki (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was 'hairy' well before I or Reddogsix chimed in! :-\ I'm staying out of it now though I have dropped a message on User:Deb's talkpage as they were the last Admin (I think) to delete PWCT in October 2013. 220 of ^Borg 10:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be accurate, I did not remove the CSD, I PROD'd it and then AfD'd it. The removal was accomplished by others. reddogsix (talk) 14:14, 21

November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I concede, without carefully laying out the edit histories of all these pages, interleaving and ordering by timestamp, I don't know what happened. I saw the original move. It seemed pointless but it didn't break the on-going AfD and I could at least follow it. Then a few hours later, it was like a bomb went off and there was chaos. Msnicki (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dithering. Actually, I think this might be the page that should be kept. It is far better than the page I deleted last month, and infinitely superior to the one being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language).Deb (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the links in my comment above, this is just a straight copy of the PWCT (programming language) article from two weeks ago, before any attempts were made to source it. The article creator appears to have (while logged out) thinned PWCT (programming language) to a stub, copypasted an earlier version of it at PWCT, and then tried to speedy PWCT (programming language) as author-requests-deletion (which was rejected). If this content is worth keeping, we should salvage the original article for the sake of the edit history. --McGeddon (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a better article only because there's less of it. Once gone, it could be perfect. :) There are still no reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This computing article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. Msfclipper (talk) 22:24, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (none of the original issues have been addressed) TEDickey (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The overlapping AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (programming language) was closed a few days ago with the verdict that the article's creator was, despite being able to point to seventy forum, blog and primary sources, unable to demonstrate that PWCT met WP:NSOFT. This copy of the article offers no better sources; in fact, it doesn't offer any. --McGeddon (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was a bit surprised that this got relisted but looking at my !vote above, I realize I should have given a guidelines-based reason for deletion, rather than just complaining about the copy. It's not fair to assume the patrolling admin will have read all the history through the previous AfD/Supernova and AfD/PWCT discussions.
Msfclipper (talk · contribs) is the author of the PWCT and Supernova programming languages and of the articles here on WP on those subjects. Notability on Wikipedia requires reliable, independent, secondary sources actually about the subject. Every one of those words means something particular here. This has been explained in those previous AfDs. What we got instead was a kind of citation spam, a huge volume of completely irrelevant citations to blog and discussion board posts. These are called questionable sources and it took time to check them all. When Msfclipper made a copy PWCT article as the AfD closed in on PWCT (programming language) it felt like an evasion of the AfD process.
For real. There are no sources to support notability. I looked. Msnicki (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here are some references which establish notability: [28], [29], [30]. ~KvnG 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

probably not: the first one is questionable since it appears to be based on text written by Fayed (which is not a good indication), the second one was written by the person we've been discussing, and the third is by an anonymous reviewer. So only one is a possibility. Bear in mind that WP:Notability says "significant coverage", and given the status of the first one as a dubious review, we've still got nothing to discuss TEDickey (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as a reminder, it's easy to distinguish a review from cut/paste/massage of advertising material. The former ferrets out both strengths and weaknesses and makes pointed comparisons against similar products. Advertising material does not. TEDickey (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tedickey. None of these qualifies as a reliable independent secondary source. The first is an anonymous review on a catalog site and may well have been contributed by the author of PWCT. The second was bylined by author of the PWCT. And the third is an interview with the author on a wiki site, presenting only his own ideas in his own words. All of these are what we call questionable sources. None of these sites has a reputation for editorial control, needed to allow us to consider them reliable. In addition, all three sources appear to be WP:PRIMARY. Msnicki (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the criteria is "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources." We each independently assess whether this criteria is met. Thanks Tedickey and Msnicki for sharing your analysis. I agree that this is not a strong keep but I believe it meets the minimum criteria. ~KvnG 22:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hmm - which criteria are you referring to? WP:Notability has several things to say, including "Independent of the subject" - all of the points in the guideline have to be met. TEDickey (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here are more links which establish notability: [31], [32], [33], [34], The first result in [35].

Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria:

   The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.
   The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs.
   The software is the subject of multiple printed third party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews written by independent authors and published by independent publishers.
   It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources.

PWCT is published software (free-open source, 8 years old, total downloads over 6,500,000 downloads [36] and using google search you can easily find the software [37] ).

PWCT is provided as a distance learning course by King Saud University - Chair of pervasive and Mobile computing [38] [39].

PWCT is covered by free Arabic tutorials/books written by many authors. [40]

PWCT is covered by many articles in printed newspaper in KSA, Iraq, Emarat and Egypt [41] [42]

PWCT is used for developing the Supernova programming language [43] and this is an advanced usage of a visual programming language, this paper cite Supernova [44].

PWCT is used for developing the Critical nodes application [45] and this paper is a result of this application [46]

The article can be improved by the help of contributors. Msfclipper (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another avalanche of junk links. Msnicki (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get my point of view, My comment is not only about links, the point is that the Software is notable if it meets any one of these criteria ... You are talking about the first criteria but there are three else and PWCT is notable through these criteria. Msfclipper (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "distance learning course" needs a clearer source than a certificate (signed by Mahmoud Fayed, PWCT's developer?) and a list of developers on PWCT's own site.

Self-published tutorials by Mahmoud Fayed and other users are not "written by independent authors and published by independent publishers".

The "covered by many articles" links you provide are both WP:PRIMARYNEWS interviews with the developer: these are not regarded as reliable sources.

A research paper mentioning Supernova in one paragraph was insufficient for the article you created at Supernova (programming language), so is also insufficient for the language used to develop Supernova which the paper does not mention at all.

Mahmoud Fayed writing a paper about a Critical Nodes application that he used his own PWCT software on confers no notability to that software. --McGeddon (talk) 22:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this [47], another article in Alriyadh (printed newspaper), the aritcle is not an interview, the author write about useful free open source software, you will find the article point to three projects including PWCT. Also you can look at this [48] it is article (not interview) and printed in Emart, and look at this [49] it is also an article (not interview). Along the time i can come with more and better references, also other contributors could help (add/edit/remove to create a better article). Msfclipper (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get your point of view. Unfortunately, it's not a neutral point of view. This is your product and of course it seems important and notable to you. And while there are indeed other ways besides reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability, there is nothing to indicate that PWCT satisfies any of those criteria either. There is no evidence it's the subject of instruction anywhere. There are no third party instruction manuals or reviews (or we'd have already !voted to keep). And there's certainly no showing that anyone but you regards PWCT as having historical or technical significance. All we have is this continuing flood of completely irrelevant citations. When you post a junk link, we have still to go look it, which takes time, all of it wasted on junk you should know by now can't possibly satisfy the guidelines. This is why patience is running thin. All it takes is 2 good sources. You just don't have them. Msnicki (talk) 23:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here two references about students talking about the distance learning [50] , [51] and along the time i will come with better references from the university website (I will try). Also we already have good references but how you don't consider articles (written by independent authors and printed by independent publishers), Maybe you don't have neutral point of view or conflict of interest. Msfclipper (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What part of blogs don't count as reliable sources do you still not understand? The rest of your comments to me and Tedickey, suggesting we're the ones who are biased, is just lame. I think I'm done. Someone put a fork in this. Msnicki (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this [52] is not a blog post !!, it is an article (not interview) in printed newspaper. and many others that you ignore!. Msfclipper (talk) 03:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oof! Why am I even bothering? That's one paragraph regurgitating some basic info about this software but adding absolutely nothing that appears to be the writer's own thoughts. And even though it's not labeled a blog, that's certainly what it looks like, right down to author being identified only by his email. Msnicki (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alriyadh Newspaper is a printed journal, see this [53] and the article is a printed article in the newspaper and written in a page around computer and technology by writers with knowledge in this domain, Alriyadh Newspaper covered PWCT two times, one in 2008 (half page in the journal) [54] and the article is written by Hend Al-Khalifa (Associate Professor, Information Technology Department, College Of computer and Information Sciences) [55] Msfclipper (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC) The second article [56] is written in 2010, by Khalid Almusehig, the article contains the writer's own thoughts, he select only good open source software (in his opinion) to present in the journal. PWCT is covered in many printed journals by many independent author in articles published by many independent publishers. Msfclipper (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm done. I've looked at almost 100 of your "sources". At some point, I really am walking away. This is that point. 05:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Check your Wikipedia Sprite, we are here to help Wikipedia, we give time for that, if you are tired, need to take a rest, no problem but when you post be objective and add useful comments that help Wikipedia. Msfclipper (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and are under no personal WP:OBLIGATION to continue discussions they are finding unproductive. --McGeddon (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all volunteers, we share the same mission (help Wikipedia). Msfclipper (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another reference [57] Msfclipper (talk) 15:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing a good job of convincing us that Mahmoud Samir Fayed is the only person who writes about PWCT, aside from this page TEDickey (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be objective Msfclipper (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Another two references from King Saud University website [58] , [59], PWCT copyright (ISBN : 978-9960-55-981-0 ) Msfclipper (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Google-translated to English, the first page offers no context for what the table means or why PWCT is listed in it (it just says "Copyright that has been protected by intellectual property and software technology licensing"). Is it just stating that Fayed worked on PWCT while studying at King Saud University, therefore they own the intellectual property? The second page is a JPG which I am unable to translate. --McGeddon (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They have English website [60], Their mission is to transfer technological innovation developed at KSU to society (PWCT is a free open source product supported by King Saud University from 2011, They use it in distance learning and in developing software for internal use by research projects.). The second page (JPG) says that a copy from the software (and documentation/reference) is included in King Fahd National Library [61] under number 1433/2828 in 1434/2/10 (date = 2012/12/24), by the way this is another article about PWCT (published in printed newspaper called Youm7 in Egypt) [62] and a copy from this article is publish by Maktoob(Yahoo) [63] and again i will come with more/better references along the time, also other contributors could help by modifying the articleMsfclipper (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any corresponding page on their English website. A lot of your sources turn out to be written by Mahmoud Samir Fayed - when you say "[KSU] use it in distance learning and in developing software for internal use by research projects", do you mean "Mahmoud Samir Fayed does some teaching at KSU, and during one such course he used the language he invented"? WP:NSOFT requires that software be the subject of instruction at multiple universities.

I can't judge the reliability of the Maktoob article, but an interview with Fayed is once again WP:PRIMARYNEWS. And a copy of a student project being filed in their university's library is, as I understand it, standard practice and confers no notability. --McGeddon (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to find a better references in the university website about the distance learning course, but for now, PWCT satisfy WP:NSOFT through " It is published software that has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources" , PWCT is free open source, 8 years old, over 6,500,000 downloads, over 200,000 web hits (google search), covered by many printed newspapers (independent authors - independent publishers), covered by many websites, in the TIOBE INDEX at position 101 of 228 programming languages worldwide, in the top 20 growing projects according to Sourceforge statistics. PWCT is a Visual Programming Language and these languages are few, not widely used like C/C++/Java/C#/PHP/Python/Ruby, check this article [[64]] you will find that (1) most of these visual languages are not widely used but still notable in their domain and PWCT is notable enough in this domain to be in Wikipedia (2) most of these visual language are commercial or freeware and there are little open source visual programming language, and PWCT is free open source with over 30 contributors. PWCT is used to create large scale software (ex: supernova programming language) and this is a clear technical value for a visual programming language (most of the visual languages in the list are used in (education, domain-specific, database, simulations and games). From here i ask other Wikipedia contributors with knowledge in visual programming languages to share their ideas about the topic and vote (Keep or Delete) no problem but more votes in my opinion will make the picture more clear, in my opinion it is clear that the software is notable in the domain Msfclipper (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it were clear, you could find someone to agree with you. TEDickey (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to give the benefit of doubt and give this time for it to run its natural course. Why all the aggression? ~KvnG 21:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking that question? TEDickey (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have an inclusionist bent and am concerned about new editor retention. ~KvnG 21:19, 6 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native[edit]

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

It's largely my fault that this page exists in its current state. Until 16 October, there was disambiguation at Native, but also a good bit of essay-like commentary on the connotation of the word native. I removed the non-DAB material, but then noticed discussion on Talk:Native suggesting that the DAB be moved to Native (disambiguation) and the other material left in place. I reverted myself and then made the changes suggested in that discussion. Since that time, though, only three edits have been made, adding a category and a maintenance tag. It seems unlikely to me that an article can be created which does not violate the spirit of WP:NOTESSAY and NOT#DICT. I now think it would be better to go back to my original attempt: delete the essay and move the DAB page back to this name. Cnilep (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Uyvsdi (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
So you want the Return of the Native dab page? Delete per nom and Thomas Hardy fans everywhere. I've trimmed the dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:36, 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 speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) buff bills 7701 12:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foam pump[edit]

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

Unsourced article consisting almost entirely of original research. No evidence of notability. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. - Mr X 04:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a cursory search on Google Books failed to turn up anything relevant (most of the hits were related to firefighting equipment), I find it hard to believe that something this commonplace isn't documented in any reliable sources anywhere. Perhaps there are some trade publications that discuss foam pumps in more detail? I wouldn't know where to look, but this is the kind of thing where common sense indicates that there must be some sources somewhere. *** Crotalus *** 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the same thing. Perhaps there's a more commonly used term for it? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A search for foaming dispenser turns up a lot of hits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep/(edit) Possible Move (EDITED TO SAY I ONLY LOOKED AT PHOTOS AND LAYOUT-IT WAS horribly written)Also-the thing is apparently being called a "foamer", so a move may be needed?24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Well written article so far. The foam pump delivery system may have some other names, (and I will look around), but this product delivery device is used daily by a lot of people and why shouldn't it have an article? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Soap dispenser#Foam soap dispensers. If we consider foam pumps in the broad sense, there is a good bit of material out there about foam pumps (often called proportioning systems) used for foam based firefighting, or foam based insulation, or foam based plastics construction, enough for a keep. If we want to restrict to just the household soap foam pumps, I found a few refs from nationalpurity.com, ask.com and lifehacker.com. There are also patents to draw from, but they aren't considered RS in the context of AfD. In my opinion, there is not quite enough depth to satisfy WP:GNG, but there is enough verifiable information for the section Soap dispenser#Foam soap dispensers. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should preserve verifiable information rather than deleting it, hence merge. I'd be happy to reconsider should others find more in depth RS. --Mark viking (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is not a soap foam dispenser exactly. It is used for liquids. I have been editing the article from the point of view of hair dye dispensing since the "foamer" is /has been rolled-out on most of the major hair dyes available to consumers-(switched from old methods/dispensers).

The article was a mess, and coincidentally I almost ran into an edit-war while I was trying to fix the article because another editor was right on top of me undoing the spelling and other improvements that I was trying to make. If you think about how many boxes of hair-dye are purchased in the US alone, you will realize how prevalent this device is. And it is a little mysterious to consumers because the instructions for use are very different from past instructions and there is less product, with none that I can see price reduction. There are environmental claims that may or may not be valid but the ones in the article were unreffed, gibberish, and too promotional so I yanked them.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discussion indicates item is clearly notable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Not understanding why this has been carried forward. As there is clearly no consensus to delete, the discussion should be terminated. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 11:58, 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 redirect to Compilation of Final Fantasy VII. Image tagged also ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia (Final Fantasy VII)[edit]

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

Pretty article, but fails WP:GNG (primary guideline, as noted by Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). 99% of the refs are either primary source (games), or primary sources (artbooks). There is no indication that this setting has received any significant coverage in mainstream press, or otherwise had any cultural impact that would make it notable enough to have its encyclopedic entry (for comparison, look at Spira_(Final_Fantasy)#Analysis and Ivalice#Reception). I am AfDing instead of a prod, given the cultural impact of the FF7 in general, but I hope we will not have to many fans trying to defend it "because it's FF7, dude!". If you think this topic should stay, prove it by providing reliable sources. If this is deleted, I suggest contacting final fantasy wikia, as it may be interested in importing our fancrufted content. PS. File:Midgar.jpg should be deleted, too. PPS. Pinging major contributors: User:Ryu Kaze, User:Kariteh, User:Hibana, User:TJF588, User:Axem Titanium, User:Urutapu, User:Videogamer810 _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AfD is the wrong venue for deleting files such as Midgar.jpg. If you think this should be deleted, please take it to Wikipedia:Files for deletion instead. Even then, given the interest in this game, I would recommend a transwiki to WM commons. --Mark viking (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @User:Mark viking: If this article is kept, I have no problem with the image being kept. But if the article is deleted, the image will be orphaned fair use, and should be deleted per standing policy, without a need for a separate discussion. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Compilation of Final Fantasy VII for someone to merge a few paragraphs later at their leisure. There doesn't seem to be much reason for the article to exist without more non-primary sources. TTN (talk) 17:00, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JungAn, Hahn[edit]

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

No sources, WP:COI/nonsense ("I love you mom!!!"), claims of notability couldn't be verified as I couldn't find anything on the web. Alex^{discussion ★} 08:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete On top of other problems it's borderline incoherent (forkart??). Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced biography, fails WP:BLP: putting "I love you mom" in ref tags does not amount to a WP:RS no matter how many exclamation marks are appended. Incoherent, no claim to notability, possibly speedy. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Definitely. I probably would have speedy'ed this. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 06:26, 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 redirect to Marian Rivera. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Marian Rivera[edit]

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

Totally unsourced fancruft about a Filipina celebrity, apparently spun off from the main article, Marian Rivera. Where it doesn't belong either, both because it is totally unsourced and because WP isn't a fanblog. I also propose salting of the article name to prevent recreation. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 13:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a plethora of fanblog-type articles about Filipino/Filipina celebrities here on enWP, all of them either badly sourced, insufficiently sourced or not sourced at all, so there's a need for a major clean-up there. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is already in Marian Rivera then redirect; otherwise, merge and redirect to the aforementioned article. Fancruft and redundant to the main article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 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 redirect to Regine Velasquez. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Regine Velasquez[edit]

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

List of fancruft related to a Filipina singer. Of the several dozen entries in the various lists in the article two have some kind of source, of which one seems to be of dubious quality, the rest is totally unsourced. Nominated for deletion both because it's unsourced and because WP is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 14:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the information is already in Regine Velasquez then redirect; otherwise, merge and redirect to the aforementioned article. Fancruft and redundant to the main article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. Any relevant information can be included there. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 7 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vegetarian and vegan characters[edit]

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

~~Seems we already have List of fictional vegetarians,~~ (See below) Fails GNG & IMHO it's unencyclopedic, -
→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The provided list was a redirect, to a section that doesn't exist anymore. That said, I think this fails WP:LISTN; I haven't found any reliable sources that generate such lists. Additionally, inclusion criteria is not clear; do fictional characters have to identify as vegetarian? What if one episode shows them eating meat? What happens if, they are vegetarian, then a new book comes out and they decide to eat a hot dog? Ultimately I think this goes a step too far in terms of listing fictional characters by some attribute of their eating behavior which, if we look at real-life vegetarians, changes over time.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re the edit history. List of fictional vegetarians became a redirect to List of vegetarians in January 2011 [65], but the fictional characters were deleted from that list in April 2013 [66] following talk page discussion now located at Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 3#Fictional Characters...?. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, I wasn't aware, As merging/redirecting is now pointless, per Obi-Wan Kenobi deletion's the only solution. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eat - WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:IINFO says it all. Even if it were sourced, maintaining this page (as well as the older one) would be too difficult. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deletion history of Category:Fictional vegetarians has some relevance; three prior CFDs (check its log for links). postdlf (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore the previously merged-and-deleted content into this list. This is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is clearly a trivial and unencyclopedic cross categorization. In the absence of an encyclopedic article on vegetarianism in fiction, it's not really possible to claim a list of individual examples has any merit to inclusion. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Strikes me both as list cruft and also as completely harmless and somewhat entertaining. Live and let live, etc. No policy-related opinion either way. Carrite (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. Until this becomes a topic of academic or social inquiry, there's no reason to have a list on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Vegetarianism in popular culture, a more plausible article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 25 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google (e.g. search for vegetarianism in fiction or vegetarianism in popular culture) shows that there are some sources discussing this, but really only in blogs and forums. If someone's written a book or scholarly articles about the presentation of vegetarianism/veganism in media/art/fiction, a move or keep would be possible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But let me know if you find any good sources. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AEvolutions[edit]

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

Unverified, and I find nothing on Google that could serve as a reliable reference--nothing but a couple of bloggies and forums. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four books in the line, all supplements, no awards, all published between 2005 and 2006. Seems almost entirely non-notable. Delete. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:41, 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. After over three weeks I think it's acceptable to treat this as an uncontested (indeed, endorsed) PROD. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sione Tekiteki[edit]

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

Not notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. One of a glut of articles on seemingly non notable St Peter's College old boys. Wikipedia is not a webhost for a collection bios of a schools former students. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:26, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:30, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN, no independent coverage either.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:11, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Bennett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

no significant activities, no non-local references DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:23, 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, Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a simple factoid. I am not adverse to seeing United Way leaders on here but properly cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilyharris (talk • contribs) 18:29, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not see any notability according to WP:N. It is not clear why this person is notable, all references are local.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:07, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of massacres in Turkmenistan[edit]

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

Article is unsourced, and there's only one incident anyway (not surprising, as the country is only 22 years old), so it's not much of a list. p b p 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One listing does not make a list. Fork of Battle of Geok Tepe. Carrite (talk) 17:29, 25 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For a number of reasons - there aren't sourced massacres, as above, and there's also not a clearly given definition. Nwlaw63 (talk) 01:20, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Scholl[edit]

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

No non-affiliated sources that prove notability. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 01:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwertyus - Added a few non-affiliated sources. Let me know if those will work. Thanks! wright501

I guess the Indiana Sports Journal and South Bend Tribune articles count as multiple secondary sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 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 merge to Ultraverse. Go for it! Merge away. SarahStierch (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aladdin (comics)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability independent of Marvel Comics through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of plot details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultraverse. Not independently notable. I'm willing to change my vote if someone can provide some sources, though. I had trouble narrowing down the results properly. The obvious search terms, such as aladdin malibu and aladdin "malibu comics", provided little of apparent relevance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:22, 22 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ultraverse.--Crazy runner (talk) 16:53, 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. I'm withdrawing my nomination. SarahStierch (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marlise Keith[edit]

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

May fail our general notability guidelines. I struggled to discover multiple reliable sources, including as a WP:ARTIST, that weren't press releases, mere mentions, or from non reliable sources. SarahStierch (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most artists will maintain press clippings and info at their website: Reviews. Two from Liechtenstein papers, three from Cape Times (South Africa) and one from Die Burger. In the bio section she says for 2010: "Afrikaan at Sarah Kahn Contemporary, Schaan Lichtenstein with reviews in the Volksblad. "Blight" at Wembly Square, Cape Town with reviews in the Cape Times, Die Burger and Big Issue and Fine Music Radio". She also claims reviews in the Cape Argus (2009), Die Beeld (2008), and "a review by Cobus van Bosch of the Burger" (2000). I'm willing to assume accurate claims that are verifiable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I'm going to close and withdraw this. Thanks GC. I rushed to judgement on this one. SarahStierch (talk) 08:28, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vella kalpi[edit]

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

Non-notable film. buff bills 7701 00:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is less than 24 hours old, and although it doesn't yet have references, a short amount of searching found these possible refs: [67], [68], and a YouTube video of a news story on a reunion of the cast and crew. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 00:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other search terms:

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

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

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

Keep the film is extremely well known and popular in Latvia ~~Xil (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSB and number of Latvian language book sources speaking toward the film in this NEW article.[69] We really do this encyclopedia a dis-service if we ignore an article's potential in a (sorry) rush to judgement. Notable to Latvia, even Soviet Latvia, is good enough for us. Let this be improved over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:43, 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.