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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nominator advocates non-delete position and no outstanding keep !votes (or any !votes, in this case). User:Bookishness, start a merge discussion on the talkpage of the article, please - see WP:Merging and Help:Merging for instructions. (non-admin closure) Ansh666 01:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Customization of avatars[edit]

Customization of avatars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Merge with Avatar (computing) Bookishness (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 October 1. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 23:37, 1 October 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) 00:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Theron[edit]

Peter Theron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable instructor; fails WP:PROF and WP:POLITICIAN. Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nominator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. As, apparently, a non-research mathematician (I found only his thesis research in Google scholar, with no citations, and MathSciNet also has nothing else by him) he fails WP:PROF. And as a two-time unsuccessful political candidate he fails WP:POLITICIAN. There's some minor news coverage of his political activities (e.g. this one) which is about him and not completely trivial, but I don't think it rises to the level of overriding WP:POLITICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As the WP:SCHOLAR says, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.", there is no signs of the person receiving a award. The article doesn't tell much about the political career. ///EuroCarGT 01:07, 2 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Energy policy of Turkey[edit]

Energy policy of Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page does not appear to cover something that needs its own page, nor does it provide good enough content to justify its notability. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your second point that it does not have enough content therefore I am adding a "stub" tag to encourage others to add to it. However I disagree with your first point: it is certainly more important than the energy policies of Belgium, Scotland, Finland or Romania which are all listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Energy_policy_by_country Jzlcdh (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such a page could be valuable, but right now it doesn't string together or make much sense. Can you address that point to improve the page? Jeremy112233 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and stubbify (even further). This looks like a WP:COATRACK creation to hang the Greenpeace "controversy". Not to say it was done in bad faith, but it reads very POV due to balance problems. In fact I'm not even sure the controversy section is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, or that it is even a controversy. I would support a 1-sentence stub to get the topic started, and move the "controversy" to the talk page until later authors can balance the article, per WP:NPOV. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 06:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - See [1] as an example of the coverage of Turkish energy policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy makes a good point that it did not string together, so I have expanded it slightly and added a Min. of Energy reference. Thanks Whpq - I have now added a similar book but more recent. Obviously whoever made the redlink which prompted me to create it thought an article was needed. It was only started a few days ago so give it a chance. Jzlcdh (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The new sources give it a much better start, so I'm changing my vote to Keep. I've also fixed up the structure a bit in order to have it comply better with the style guide. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Cassell[edit]

Tom Cassell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP article that does not meet WP:ENT nor WP:CREATIVE, only sources are WP:PRIMARY Tgeairn (talk) 21:57, 1 October 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) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nominator. PrairieKid (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Despite an intruded line about Syndicate, now reverted, the previous AfD was for a different person. AllyD(talk) 06:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I do not see how some one who has 5 million subscribers is not noteworthy, when other similar youtubers do have pages. I understand the fact that page is not well sourced, but I don't have the time to add the sources, maybe you could help instead of trying to get the page deleted. GingerGeek (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 5 million is significant supported by WP:ENT "Has a large fan base". WP:GNG per two sources Daily Mirror and The Sunday Times. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - coverage in the Miror, Sunday Times and BBC are significant and feature Cassells as the primary topic meeting the requirement of multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I find it hard to believe that a fan-base on utube can be the basis for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube stardom is a real thing.[2][3][4] They can make big revenue it's a legitimate media channel. People like Cassell shouldn't be confused with viral hits of cats and most other amateur stuff on YouTube. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, expected that I would be !voting delete wen I pulled up this AFD, because most articles on "Youtube celebrities" fail our notability guidelines. But this one appears to be an exception as he has actually garnered sufficient coverage (at least in my opinion) to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Has 5m subscribers on Youtube and is one of the only top 30 subscribers not to have a page. Also, featured in national newspapers and televison news. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.73.104 (talk)
• Keep I also thought that a Youtube channel for videogame commentary/playthroughs would be non-notable, but coverage by the Sunday Times CBBC and BBC of his making money as a youtube entertainer fits comfortably into WP:ENT.Eggishorn (talk) 00:33, 8 October 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. --BDD (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skhid[edit]

Skhid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:N not established (I tried looking for sources myself, but found this very hard as I cannot read Ukranian). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- As a Ukrainian journal, we should not be surprised at the lack of English language sources; even then there may be more than one way of transliterating cyrillic. Despite the statmetn that it uses English (among other languages), my guess is that articles merely have an abstract in English. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The journal "Skhid" is included in the information and scientometric database:
  • Ulrich's Periodicals Directory;
  • BASE;
  • EBSCO ;
  • РИНЦ; (Russian Science Citation Index)
  • Index Copernicus International S.A.;
  • WorldCat. --Білецький В.С. (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability, not indexed in any selective databases. Unless some good sources (even in Ukrainian) crop up, this does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete None of these databases are selective. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 17:39, 7 October 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. --BDD (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Small Mining Encyclopedia[edit]

Small Mining Encyclopedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Potential copyvio from [5]; WP:N not established; promotional editing by User:Білецький В.С., who self-identifies as the editor of this work. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NBOOK. 45+ Google hits, most of it sourced to Wikipedia. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. PianoDan (talk) 18:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No grounds. This encyclopedia. Please show in talk page if some facts seems to be disputable.--Білецький В.С. (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No one's disputing any facts. What's disputed is the article's notability, which is the main ground for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you can produce two independent sources for the enclopedia's notability (e.g. reviews), then it's off the hook. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Lteratura is, but in Ukrainian language. --Білецький В.С. (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Book reviews? Ukrainian is OK if there are book reviews in Ukrainian, published in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't see any evidence that this passes WP:NBOOK. Stalwart111 13:15, 8 October 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. Courcelles 20:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson J. Davis[edit]

Nelson J. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A somewhat dubious article about an aspiring actor/model with a few very minor credits. The lack of references and the SPA creator doesn't help the article's credibility. I am not seeing how this passes WP:BIO. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no prejudice towards a future article if the time comes. At this point, Nelson J. Davis is one in a thousand small time actors. He has only started working as an actor since 2012. A Google News search for Revolution, Wicked Attraction and Watercrest Beach yielded nothing even when I searched for his modelling including the magazines and CitiTrends. There simply isn't much to build a good article even a short one. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Working model and actor that is below the inclusion threshold at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A10 — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bollywood Latest Movies[edit]

List of Bollywood Latest Movies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unmaintainable list. Content can go to List of Bollywood films of 2013. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Exactly. These information should be included in the 2013/the latest year's movie article. We have an article on on 2014 films list too. We don't need this article. --Tito☸Dutta 23:55, 1 October 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 Web content. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Web-Based Content[edit]

Web-Based Content (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:DICDEF, and not even a good one (title spelling, and not everything on the interwebs needs to be entertaining). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteIn agreement with the nominator's concerns. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea hey I made the article, And While its true not everything has to be entertaining, But do't go calling a new wikipedians articles bad--Koy Hoffman (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect. Web content already exists. It's sufficiently realistic that a user might query "Web-Based Content". —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. As what Largoplazo said, no need to delete as another article has an existing topic. ///EuroCarGT 01:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Web content. This is a valid search term but the topic has already been treated elsewhere on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 14:57, 2 October 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 List of Mazinger characters. (non-admin closure) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mazinger Army[edit]

Mazinger Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability independent of Mazinger Z 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) 15:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Mazinger characters. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 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, Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 19:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect to List of Mazinger characters per [Knowledgekid87, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:50, 4 October 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 think a consensus has been reached here. This close has no prejudice towards redirection, or appropriate mentions of the subject on related articles. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Kohs[edit]

Gregory Kohs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor critic of Wikipedia. Does not appear to have sufficient independent reliable source coverage or notability. Previously deleted three times. Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient independent sources giving non-trivial coverage to establish notability. The last discussion was over six years ago. Most of the sources for the current article are more recent than that. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough verifiable references to grant some degree of notability; I just found one on FoxNews.com that I added. The previous deletions are not relevant to this discussion if the article has been substantially improved since its last incarnation six years ago. At the very least, the article could be redirected to the MyWikiBiz article. I don't see what is gained with a deletion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no person should be burdened with one of these lodestones given the incompetence of the average Wikipedia editor and the revenge and defamation motivations of more than a few. Mr. Kohs' life has not been the subject of any in depth consideration - anywhere. It is impossible to adhere to Wikipedia's policies in the absence of in-depth, quality work about him, most importantly the Website's so-called "Neutral Point of View" policy. For instance, 95% of Mr. Kohs life is devoted to his hobbies, his family, and his work as a market researcher. Yet the Wikipedia article about him devotes 60% of its space to his involvement in Wikipedia criticism and internet entrepreneurship. Let's consider the so-called "reliable sources:"

1. Idea of paid entries roils Wikipedia - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/16793247/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/idea-paid-entries-roils-wikipedia/#.UavgY9LBPTc An AP article entirely devoted to Kohs involvement in the 2007 dispute over paid editing in Wikipedia. Article mentions him plenty - but is not about him, rather the paid editing fight.

2. A Collection of Community Media Debates and Dilemmas|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=M1yNL0iI5T0C&pg=PA142 An entirely passing mention in an essay collection. The entirety of the Kohs related content is one sentence: "For example, Gregory Kohs was shut out of the site after he launched MyWikiBiz as a service to write entries for businesses." This sentence is cited to the above article Idea of paid entries roil Wikipedia. Adds nothing.

3. How Can a Small Business Get on Wikipedia? http://blog.intuit.com/marketing/how-can-a-small-business-get-on-wikipedia/ A blog. They are almost always no-nos for Wikipedia "biographies of living people." This blog merely quotes Kohs providing advice to companies on how to deal with Wikipedia. Contains zero biographical information about him. He's just quoted.

4. Gregory Kohs, publisher of MyWikiBiz.com, Philadelphia http://www.business-superstar.com/superstar-of-the-week/gregory-kohs-publisher-of-mywikibiz-com-philadelphia/

A Q&A at a website designed to promote entreupreneurs. Not the quality press. Not academia. The author of the Q&A is the same person, Phil Hall, as the author of the intuit blog. But no matter, not a suitable source for constructing a neutral biographical article.

5. Press Release - Announcing a new Wikipedia criticism site http://wikipediocracy.com/press-release/ Self-explanatory. A press release. That merely mentions Kohs name in passing.

6. Wikipedia Blocks a Pay-for-Play Scheme http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/wikipedia-blocks-a-pay-for-play-scheme/2796 Another blog from 2007 that mentions Kohs bannination over MyWikiBiz (his paid editing venture) that is both a "blog" and contains no useful biographical information.

7. Wiki-palooza Part III: The world of wikis and how b2b marketing can win in this game http://www.funnelholic.com/2008/08/06/wiki-palooza-part-iii-the-world-of-wikis-and-how-b2b-marketing-can-win-in-this-game/ A... wait for it... wait for it... blog from 2008 about "sales, marketing and things that drive revenue" that has a short Q&A with Kohs about MyWikiBiz and paid editing for corporations at Wikipedia.

8. Welcome to MyWikiBiz! http://www.mywikibiz.com/Main_Page - This is self-published source that doesn't contain any information about Kohs at all - not even his name (though it is a link to the business that he started).

9. A Whois lookup on the wikipediocracy.com domain name. http://www.whois-search.com/whois/www.Wikipediocracy.com This is not an acceptable source for a "BLP" ever, certainly not to either provide biographical information about the subject, nor to establish "notablity" in Wikipedia parlance.

10. The Future of the Internet – And How to Stop It http://yupnet.org/zittrain/archives/16#48 Apparently a link to a book that makes no mention of Kohs at all, although it does mention MyWikiBiz in two paragraphs within its 14 chapters.

11. Newspapers abound in cyber resources http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SAEC&p_theme=saec&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAFE7E10DB1886F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

an article, apparently carried in the san antonio express news, from 1997 that mentions kohs in passing as the writer of an "e-zine."

12. CT in you clinical practice http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15461297

Links to an abstract of a survey of radiologists which Kohs co-authored. Biogrphical information? Zippo.

13. what's wrong with accepting money to write on Wikipedia. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/business/technology/whats-wrong-with-accepting-money-to-write-on-wikipedia-469640/

This is in fact the same AP story as source 1, just with a different headline. (Misusing and attributing wire stories this way is a very common tactic on Wikipedia that few notice).

14/15/16. All are articles written by Kohs, not about Kohs (not even autobiographical). For instance - http://wikipediocracy.com/2013/01/16/whos-the-best-yoruban-wikipedian-of-them-all/

17. A Foxnews.com article about Wikipedia and porn that quotes Kohs. Once. No biographical info. http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/09/17/wikipedia-abandons-efforts-to-purge-porn-from-online-encyclopedia/

So to recap: None of "sources" provided treat Kohs in depth. Sources 3,4 6 and 7 are blogs that mention him briefly, only in connection to MyWikiBiz. Source 1 is the only mainstream news source of the 10, exclusively about MyWikiBiz thing in 2007. Sources 2 and 10 and 11 and 17 are passant mentions (10 is so passant it doesn't mention him at all). Source 5 is a press release that mentions Kohs only briefly. Source 8 is a link to his site that does not mention him at all. Source 9 is a "Whois" lookup about a domain registration. Source 13 is not a new source (identical to source 1, just made to look like an additional source).Dan Murphy (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Biographies of living people often focus on what makes the individual notable. Discussion of the subject's hobbies, family or day job may needlessly violate privacy. In this case, the subject is primarily notable as a pioneer of the steadily growing paid WP editing industry. That is the main focus of the article, as it should be. The independent sources discuss this in some depth. The site that criticizes Wikipedia also serves a valuable purpose, and is given due mention by independent sources. Some of his work is quoted, but this is not the essence of the article. Removing the article on the basis of "I don't like it" would indeed be bias. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree that hobbies, etc. is private, irrelevant, and non-notable information. But since Dan Murphy's response discusses at length the problems that the article has with sourcing, your accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is nonsensical. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The independent sources give a fair view of what makes the subject notable, not in terms of where or whether he went to kindergarten, but in terms of his important contributions to the evolution of the internet. Obviously he has sometimes taken a position that will be unwelcome to some editors. We should be careful to discount that in making the notability decision. The NBC article would in itself be sufficient to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously we should discount that in making the notability decision. But you bringing that up in response to Dan Murphy implies that he is guilty of expressing that sort of opinion, and I don't believe his post does that. Gamaliel (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If Greg wants to have this article deleted then Keep but if he wants to have it kept then Delete. Wait, no. I got that backwards. If he wants it kept Keep if he wants it deleted Deleted. Unless he's misrepresenting his intentions. In that case if he says he wants it deleted then he must mean he wants it kept hence delete. And if he says he wants it kept then he must surely want to have it deleted hence, keep. Whoa, that's wrong also, I had you there for a second. Obviously if he wants it deleted he would try to put the article as far away from himself as possible. I'm a Wikipediocracy member hence my proximity to the vote is relevant. So reverse it. Pretend Kohs is delete => real Kohs is keep => Wikipediocracy must vote keep. I think. Unless... he anticipated that voters here would anticipate that in which case... if he says delete then we must keep but only if Wikipediocracy is staffed by Australians. Because Australians are originally criminals, hence Wikipediocracy is populated by ex-criminals. And you can never trust ex-criminals hence if a member of Wikipediocracy such as myself believes that Kohs wants to have the article deleted but says he wants it kept but anticipates that voters here will believe he wants it kept when he wants it deleted... then obviously a Wikipediocracy member such as myself is not reliable and the case must be that if Greg Kohs wants the article deleted but says he wants it kept but anticipates that voters here will believe he wants it kept when he wants it deleted but a Wikipediocracy member states that it must be the case that Greg Kohs wants the article kept but says he wants it deleted but anticipates that voters here will believe he wants it deleted when he wants it kept, then obviously obviously the opposite of whatever I just said is true. Except that criminals are people who are used to not being trusted so they often say the opposite of what they really believe. So the only possible answer is .... what in the world can that be!??!!?

Anyway. Really delete it. Or better yet waste a whole amount of time arguing about stupid stuff some more. Volunteer Marek  01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sufficient sourcing to establish notability per WP:GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek. Ripberger (talk) 08:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; sources as analyzed above don't display sufficient notability. Having an article on this guy is Wikipedia navel-gazing. — Scott • talk 09:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Cast in bronze, because I'm sure that someone in 2113 will want to know about Gregory Kohs. He's exactly the sort of person you'd expect to see an article about in an encyclopedia, right?

  (Yes, the closing admin should interpret this as a !vote to delete.)

  --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge, as this is the fourth deletion debate it seems like this argument has been had before. I also agree with User:Aymatth2 in his comment above. SoundsOfNature (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge to MyWikiBiz as that is what the in-depth sources are really about. That article didn't exist at the time of last AfD so it wasn't a viable target, but now it doth be one.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closure on an AfD is generally binary: keep or delete. It could be accompanied by a comment that there seems to be support for a merge. This next step could then be discussed on the talk page by interested editors, and if agreed implemented in the way that was agreed. Merge is done when the subject article has no chance of becoming non-trivial and the subject is part of the target, like an island in an archipelago or a subsidiary of a parent company. The merged content becomes a section in the target. A redirect is to an article with an alternate name for the subject, or to an article section that discusses the subject. I don't see either applying, but that can be discussed separately. This discussion is over whether the information should be purged from Wikipedia.

To make an unrelated point, I consider that Mr. Kohs has made significant contributions to the evolution of the web, which is why I started the article. But without wanting to imply any lack of respect, I would say that at this stage in his career he is at the lower end of notability according to Wikipedia criteria. If he asks for the article to be deleted it should be deleted. If not, it should be kept. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it is very clear at the AfD page that merge is a viable result of an AfD. The problem is that so many people are stuck in the keep/delete battle mentality to the point that rational middle paths are rarely considered and often ignored once suggested. You are also wrong about when merges or redirects are appropriate. Articles about people are often merged into or redirected to articles about groups or events with which the person is associated, even if there is no section for that person in those articles.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TDA is quite right, AfDs result in merges or redirects all the time. Aymatth2, you need to improve your understanding of the process. — Scott • talk 12:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Merge" is a reasonable outcome if it is obvious how it will be accomplished, usually when all the content of the source article can be comfortably fitted into the target article. Examples would be a description of an island in an archipelago, an album by a rock band, a subsidiary of a parent company. In this case, much of the biographical information would not really be appropriate in the article on the company. The decision on how much to merge and how much to drop would be controversial. Better to first gain agreement through the requested merge process. On the other hand, MyWikiBiz seems to be a one-person company and could reasonably be merged into this article. Most of that article is about Kohs, and nothing would have to be dropped. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A single-purpose account making a point about other stuff the nom has created. Nothing to do with the article subject. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Question: Why did Gamaliel nominate this particular article for deletion? What was his motivation? Reason I ask is because Gamaliel found it important enough to create Wikipedia's article about Lavabit. That article really concedes that even though Lavabit was launched in 2004, it was never notable for anything until July 2013, when "it was revealed that Edward Snowden was using the Lavabit email". In fact, if you look at all of the references used to support Lavabit's coverage prior to Snowden, Wikipedia points to several archived screen shots of Lavabit's old website, to Alexa.com, and to an incredibly flimsy "source" called Possibility.com. That's our standard for reliable sourcing to establish notability? So, do I have this straight -- Gamaliel feels that Lavabit should be enshrined in Wikipedia because it became notable because one notable person once used it famously? But, a biography about Gregory Kohs should not be kept, because Kohs became notable because he interacted with one notable website and used it famously? If we have an article about Lavabit, where is Wikipedia's independent article about White Ford Bronco, Monica Lewinsky's blue dress, or Schleicher Intimus 007 S? Now, this question will get shouted down with various "don't attack the nominator" complaints, but really... why does Gamaliel display two different standards for notability in Wikipedia? If it weren't for Snowden, would we have an article about Lavabit? What makes Lavabit notable -- provably notable -- if it weren't for Snowden? - Q for G (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] My reasons are stated above. My motivation was based on the fact that in the past, critics of Wikipedia like Mr. Kohs have objected to having Wikipedia articles at all, due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, etc., so I was interested in eliminating a potential WP:BLP issue. You are welcome to disagree, of course. I don't much care one way or the other. This is a pretty minor matter. Gamaliel (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I think his business is clearly notable although as an individual it's a close call with respect to GNG. Merge what needs to be merged if this ends Delete. No opinion on notability here but my opinion of my erstwhile nemesis has evolved over the years. I think he's swell. Carrite (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think that's the right call in this case, what the hell. Carrite (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to MyWikiBiz per The Devil's Advocate. As I brought upon the Talk Page, I don't think this individual is notable enough to have his own article and it makes sense to merge Kohs and MyWikiBiz as they are related. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I agree that it makes sense to merge the two articles, but it is easiest to merge the article on the company into the one on the person. I have roughly merged all the content from the MyWikiBiz article into Gregory Kohs. The expanded article holds together as a discussion of the internet activity that has made Kohs notable. I can't see a merge in the other direction working. Most of the well-sourced material in the MyWikiBiz article is in fact about Kohs, and does not belong in a discussion of the company. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that User:Dan Murphy quickly reverted the addition of material. I have restored it. The material added is from MyWikiBiz, and is sourced. Whether these sources are good can be discussed separately. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has done it again! Surely efforts to improve an article during an AfD by adding relevant, well-sourced material is encouraged? Aymatth2 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The version that Dan Murphy so strongly objects to is here. Looks good to me. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE if there's sufficient reason to believe that the subject wants the article deleted.

A) User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek are WO (Wikipediocracy) regulars, and so associates of the subject and admirers I gather. As such, it's reasonable to consider then as spokesmen for the subject. Obviously the subject himself is not going to come here and request deletion -- he can't, actually -- so heeding the thoughts of his associates is the closest thing we're going to get to knowing the subject's wishes, I think. I'd like to hear from other WO regulars such as User:Tarc to confirm (or refute) this, but as it stands its reasonable to assume that User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek speak for the subject. And even if not, since the subject hates the Wikipedia, it's reasonable to assume that he wouldn't want an article here. And we should err on the side of caution in BLP matters.

B) If its accepted that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is in play, then we should certainly honor it, because the subject is only marginally notable and is clearly not "well-known" or a "public figure", which are the criteria for honoring a BLPREQUESTDELETE. He might seem well-known to us in the world of Wikipedia but he's not well-known in the world at large.

If WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is not in play, then he's probably notable enough, but I would still suggest possibly considering a WP:IAR delete on the grounds that hosting the article is just too much of a long-term headache (constant watching, having to engage with people who hate the Wikipedia (which is tiresome), AfD's, vandalism, edit warring (there's one going on right now at the article), neither "side" ever being happy with the article, the danger of libel being committed during these heated discussions and the possibility of litigation being initiated for this or some other reason, and so on) for the very small encyclopedic value of retaining what really is a quite marginal article. It's a net loss for the Wikipedia, which is why WP:IAR comes into play. IIRC we've deleted articles on this basis once or twice in the past. Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is sensible advice. I have changed my vote to "Delete". There is a good chance the subject objects to the article, and anyway keeping it is not worth the hassle. Should MyWikiBiz also be deleted on the same grounds? It is largely a discussion of Kohs and his battles with Wikipedia. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DGG is right (see below). I don't like getting dragged into an edit war, but still... The article should be kept and expanded by merging in MyWikiBiz, as shown in this version Aymatth2 (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting "Herostratus:" "User:Dan Murphy and User:Volunteer Marek are WO (Wikipediocracy) regulars, and so associates of the subject and admirers I gather. As such, it's reasonable to consider then as spokesmen for the subject." Can't speak for Marek. However, your assumptions about who I "admire" or are my "associates" are completely false. Your statement "It's reasonable to consider them as spokesmen for the subject" is completely idiotic and unreasonable. As unreasonable and illogical as suggesting that I am an associate of and spokesman for Jimmy Wales (or you) simply because we all contribute in one way or another to this website.Dan Murphy (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. There's no need to be insulting. I'm trying my best to help work this out, OK? I'll grant all that you say (without necessarily agreeing with it), but I still contend that, given the totality of what's been posted and my take on the overall vibe, it's reasonable to act as if WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE is in play, especially if we want to interpret it liberally, which I think it'd be in the spirit of WP:BLP to do.

I call on the person closing this discussion to address this and describe whether she considered WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to be in play and if not why not, and if she doesn't do this I wouldn't consider it necessarily a fully-considered and valid close.

Incidentally, to my other point: the page is on my watchlist, and engaging editors on that article means being called "completely idiotic and unreasonable" and a lot worse. This is tiresome and wearies the soul, and wastes time that could be spent on more pleasant pursuits such as attending a shabby bear-baiting demonstration in the parking lot behind an abandoned shopping mall outside Franklin, New Hampshire -- or really, most anything else. But somebody has to do it. If my fellow editors would spare me and my similarly-situated colleagues this task, it would be a kindness. Herostratus (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources would be sufficient for anyone unconnected with WP., and the article is as it should be primarily concerned with the public aspects of his life. Deleting this is a abject and disgraceful surrender , a foolish admission that WP is incapable of editing on controversial BLP subjects. That's what our enemies try to say. NPOV is meaningless when it translates as NPOV only up to the point where it become difficult. Freedom from censorship is meaningless if we self-censor because we think it's too hard to be objective. .If we are not capable of editing something, the solution is to become capable. 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you feel that this subject does not qualify for WP:BLPDELETE ? Tarc (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, do you? As to your point, bleh. I've seen you do this before DGG -- I've nominated articles for deletion based on that fact that they're a mess a and always will be a mess, and you're like "Well, the solution is to fix it then" and years and years later they're still a mess and probably will be forever. It's not clear to me how that helps the project. It's easy to say "Keep, and let other editors take care of it" you know. Are you gonna engage on this article DGG? Bleh. Look, there are some things we can do well and some we can't, and knowing what one can and cannot do well is functional. Hosting an article on the particular individual Mr Gregory Kohs is one of the things we can't do well. Declining to host one article when we can't do it well does not render the rest of work here meaningless, that we can't host other controversial BLP articles, that we're abject surrender monkeys, or any of that. Functional organizations need to be able to calmly evaluate the cost/benefit ratio of carrying an item and casting this as a rerun of Horatio At The Bridge is not the way to look at this, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Gregory Kohs has a problem with either article he just has to click the Contact Wikipedia link at the foot of any page, including this one, and explain his concern. I don't see how WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comes into play until he does that. Both articles seem neutral and both have been around for a while. Neither are high-maintenance. There was the usual flurry of changes when this one was started in June 2013, then nothing until this AfD was started. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You make it sound so simple, like this is a routine, man-off-the-street individual, but it really isn't given the history of acrimony with Jimbo and other Wikipedia dwellers. The subject believes that if he expresses a desire for its deletion, it'd attract a small horde of editors who'd want to keep it out of spite; to call for retention would make the horde vote to delete. You're under the impression that this is a simple and straightforward online encyclopedic matter, but it really isn't. At the end of the day we have an article about a guy with a small online business who has given a smattering of interviews about it. The sum of human knowledge won't be dented if the Wikipedia does not provide information about Kohs. Tarc (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started the article, think the subject is interesting, and would like to expand it to something like this version, which gives more well-sourced information. For all I know, Gregory Kohs would like that too: a lot of people would love to have a bio in Wikipedia. I can't see anything offensive about the article, and it has not attracted a horde of spiteful editors. This discussion does not seem to be moving towards consensus, so by default the article will be kept. But If Gregory Kohs expresses concern by email, that can get passed to an admin who can close this as "requested deletion, no consensus, delete". Simple. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well if this is your threshold for notability, there's not much more one can say. If you want a true challenge though, look through the archives of the Daniel Brandt deletion discussions. If you could get that article recreated, that'd be quite an impressive notch on the wiki-headboard. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (no redirect please) and merge one or two well-sourced facts into the business article, for colour. Not enough significant coverage in multiple independent sources that aren't addressing the business. This is Wikipedia gazing at itself. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dan Murphy's comprehensive analysis of the sources and the outcome of the last three AfDs. Wikipedia has an unfortunate tendency to have an inflated view of the notability of Wikipedia-related topics, such as the Wiki Wiki Shuttle, that I think is on display here. I'm sure many of us get really worked up about Wikipediocracy, but the purpose of this project is to be an encyclopedia to the world, not to our own parochial concerns. Leave the internet navel-gazing to the Daily Dot. --BDD (talk) 22:50, 8 October 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 List of Ultraman monsters. v/r - TP 15:24, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Magma[edit]

Alien Magma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This character does not establish notability independent of Ultraman Leo 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) 20:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gomora (Ultra monster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Saramandora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Agree - needs other sources.Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 26 September 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, Rcsprinter (warn) @ 19:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect all to List of Ultraman monsters. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:07, 6 October 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disease model of addiction[edit]

Disease model of addiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Having observed this article for several years, it seems to serve no real purpose other than to vaguely describe the biological approach of modern medicine towards the treatment of addiction, which is already covered in that article. This article seems to be something of a straw-man coatrack article to be targeted by the Life-process model of addiction, a smaller, slightly fringe model that seems to devote a fair bit of time and resources simply hating on the mainstream approach. Legitimus (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LT90001 (talk) 11:59, 26 September 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, Rcsprinter (speak) @ 19:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep The topic is notable — see Theory of Addiction, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing and AfD is not cleanup. See our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's an article improvement project somewhere. This is AFD. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep Widely covered by innumerable reliable sources. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:44, 5 October 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. --BDD (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Van Leer-Greenberg[edit]

Valerie Van Leer-Greenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Scant mention in reliable sources and no indication of notability in her profession. Might be notable later if the Ortega trial proceeds and Leer-Greenberg's defense recieves more media attention. Wkharrisjr (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with nom WP:TOOSOON. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and WP:HAMMER. She could become notable soon per my own standards, but there are not enough sources about her yet to create a decent jurist-stub. Bearian (talk) 23:00, 7 October 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. As usual, I'll provide a copy to anyone who wants to put this on a zine wiki or something like it. --BDD (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anomalist[edit]

The Anomalist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail WP:NMEDIA. I see no evidence that this magazine is particularly notable. jps (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As original article creator, I can't see much evidence of third-party notability either. But perhaps others can come up with some before the AFD is over - David Gerard (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David, if you're interested in saving/copying the content, there is a Wiki that specializes in "zines and independent media", Zine Wiki. Not sure if it would be the right place but they don't currently have an entry for The Anomalist. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby release my edits to The Anomalist into the public domain. Have at it ;-) - David Gerard (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A google search of "Patrick Huyghe" "The Anomalist" brings up quite a bit. For example this book review from Journal of Scientific Exploration would be a controversial source. It has a write-up in an Encyclopedia[7] but we can't use other encyclopedia's as a sign of notability (they include everything by design). There are many other tangential citations on Google Books within the framework of fringe ideas, but they are not cites in "academic or scholarly works" per Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). There's no mainstream or scholarly coverage or citations. It does exist in 10 libraries but that is not much.[8] If this wasn't fringe science I would be more inclined to Keep (due to it being known within a specialty), but due to the nature of WP:FRINGE and lack of mainstream citation or coverage I am leaning to delete. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• We can very easily use other encyclopediasas evidence of notability. As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,the contents of reputable encyclopedias are a very good guide as to what Wikipedia should include. Is The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Extraterrestrial Encounters reliable? If it is, it is evidence of notability. If it is not, you needn't have brought it up. James500 (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, things being in other encyclopedias is frequently considered a reason to create an article on them, and specialist encyclopedias are often used as references - David Gerard (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FRINGE#Independent sources frowns upon using sources that are not independent from the fringe movement in question as evidence of notability. In this case, Ronald Story is a pretty clearly affiliated with ufology. jps (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, of course, I mean in general. But this is getting off topic for this not very notable publication :-) - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, I don't think a ufologist writing about ufology in a ufology publication should be treated as a reliable source. Notability independent of the proponents is also required per WP:FRINGE, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources which are independent of the proponents, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:57, 6 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Romania[edit]

Racism in Romania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Whole article is based on a single risible report, which states that Roma are discriminated at employment because they are not enough qualified, they are discriminated regarding the housing because they don't have money to buy authorizations, they are discriminated at education because of the drop-out rate etc. Either better sources are found, or this article should go, in my opinion. Florin zeitblom (talk) 17:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Racism in Romania[reply]

• Keep and close per "Either better sources are found, or this article should go, in my opinion." Any article that can be improved is not a good AfD candidate, per WP:BEFORE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there's overlap with Roma in Romania, there's no shortage of easily-found material on the topic, about anti-semitism and other forms of racism as well as anti-Roma feeling.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Proposer should have attempted to find sources, per WP:BEFORE. Topic is notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I edited to add a bit on anti-semitism and restructured so it's not purely about treatment of Roma. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you think that the article could be better, you can help us by improving it. bogdan (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The issue at hand is if the subject is notable. The subject of this article is racism. So, yes, it is notable, and Colapeninsula has found some sources. There is also plenty of precedent for covering the subject of racism by nation. Searching for "racism in" brings up plenty of examples of that – the first page of results brings up articles where "Racism in X" is the title or a redirect for the US, Japan, Hungary, Russia, Israel, China, the UK, Australia, Turkey, France, Ukraine, Argentina, Sweden, and India (Also, Europe, Asia, North America, the Palestinian territories, sports, and football (soccer)), so there isn't any reason to think Romania is being "singled out" for this sort of thing. Egsan Bacon (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily sufficient sources available to meet WP:GNG. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goh YiLing[edit]

Goh YiLing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I PRODed the article, but it was removed without any reason. No notability established, and no sources other than a paragraph about her being part of a beauty pageant. Fails WP:GNG. Nymf (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As far as I know someone isn't notable just for joining a beauty pageant (unless of course, you win it, or were already notable before joining the competition). A redirect isn't an option since the pageant she participated in does not even have an article (and it's unlikely it ever will). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable, even if I suppose some would consider her WP:HOTTIE. But yeah, to be notable as a pageant WINNER, the pageant needs to be SUPER-notable in itself - Miss World, etc. Although we DO have an article for Miss Singapore Universe, Ms YiLing is not listed as a winner, and in fact, appears to have only won ONE small part of the pageant, not the whole thing. To merit a redirect to the pageant article, she would have had to win the whole thing, so delete, delete, delete. Mabalu (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination Flat Out let's discuss it 12:49, 2 October 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 obvious. SNOW. Anything. Drmies (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Mumbai building collapse[edit]

2013 Mumbai building collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not-notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Every buildign collapse or disaster is not notable enough for WP. It has no lastign legacy for encyclopaedic value. Lihaas (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per precedent. Lihaas, you know full and well that your idea of NOTNEWS is not in line with consensus. In addition, you must notify the article creator for this and Gujba college massacre. Ryan Vesey 16:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any building collapse with 60+ deaths is notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:NOTNEWS, which encourages editors "to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events" while dissuading them from regurgitating "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". With 60+ people dead, over 90,000 news hits and coverage by essentially every significant news organization across the world this event clearly falls in the former category.Abecedare (talk) 22:40, 1 October 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 SK5.  Ryan Vesey 16:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gujba college massacre[edit]

Gujba college massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is added only for ITN, and there is no encyclopaedic content here other than 1 line which could be add to the List of terrorist incidents, July-December 2013. Every single incident doesnt warrant its own page when there is a page for minor ones. Individual notability is questioned, attacks in northern Nigeria are far too common. Not to mention the title is POV, 1 mionor source is only calling it as suchLihaas (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand - This article is clearly part of a wider ongoing conflict and an investigation in to the attack is being undertaken. The attack made attention world wide so is clearly noteworthy in that sense. It It also forms part of the history of an ongoing major conflict/insurgency so that is noteworthy. The investigation will also be noteworthy when it is released. This is more than a news story this is an historical event which is part of a wider conflict and series of Terrorist attacks. Sources for the article being noteworthy are here and here Sport and politics (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is mentioned in RS doesnt mean its automatically notable. The sources you cite are not global outlets and teh UN condemns incidetns all the times, that doesnt make them all notablke. For example, at the UNGA Debate right now no one have mentioned this while mentioning kenya, pakistan, etc.

What legacy does this offeR?Lihaas (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a major terrorist attack with dozens of casualties, of course it deserves it's own article. I think if this event had happened in a Western country there would be no question of it deserving its own article, just because it happened in Africa and is part of a larger conflict doesn't make it less relevant. --Hibernian (talk) 15:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location is irrelevant. If it was notable it would have more coverage. No one has made an atttempt to add anything and its days old nowLihaas (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Expand - This article clearly covers a notable incident, additional sources and information should be added but it is ridiculous to delete it 140.193.203.66 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per duh. Ryan Vesey 16:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:POINT (note: for the record, I have since expanded the update a few sentences, probably making this AFD moot anyway). Lihaas may have a point that sometimes news gets rushed to ITN without a proper update, but this is not the way to start that discussion. Teemu08 (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:34, 1 October 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) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannonlake[edit]

Cannonlake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Request by IP on talk page - This article seems to be unconstructive and offended WP:BALL. May I delete this article? See what I do? Talk to me? This is 113.253.22.52. Posted 10:07 UTC. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this reason is nonsense. Speedy more like it, as this reason is inappropriate. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep but give the article more context to prevent spurious deletion requests. Fiddle Faddle 22:02, 2 October

2013 (UTC)

Delete because there is no RELEVANT information about Cannonlake, and Intel didn't list Cannonlake as it's future roadmap, and ACCORDING TO WP:BALL, Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. 1.36.197.87 talk to me? 09:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is a sock, duplicate delete reason. Already stated on the talk page, the IP is identicial to the IP address(the two IP's are one in the same) --Lesbiangirl (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the IP both being Hong Kong is very suspicious. Someone must be using other IP's (as open WiFi) and hong kong IP's are very rare. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It's pretty obvious. How often do IPs use signatures? Plus, the are both the same ""talk to me!". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Crispo, Co-Lady of Milos[edit]

Maria Crispo, Co-Lady of Milos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

also Fiorenza II Crispo, Co-Lady of Milos, same problem. Her alleged husband is attributed another wife of the Crispo family by Hopf.

Dubious existence: full name not to be found in RS, only a mention (without first name) in self-contradictory older historian, K Hopf. He mentions the existence of 2 unnamed daughters in one of his books (without providing his source) but writes that their "father" died childless in another book and attributes another spouse (from the same family) to the alledged husband of "Fiorenza" in a third book. These 2 articles should become a note in Giacomo I Crispo.Phso2 (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator's analysis. At least from a googling, there appears to be nothing on them in Greek either. Constantine ✍ 19:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even assuming she existed, this person does not appear to be per se notable. Bearian (talk) 22:56, 7 October 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. Courcelles 19:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SMART Agent[edit]

SMART Agent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a very specific concept separate from the use of "smart agents" as a synonym for "intelligent agents". However no origin of the concept outlined here can be found. A google search only turns up dead links and derivatives of wikipedia. On closer inspection, the article text only seems to re-iterate the definition of a software agent and is perhaps an advertisement for a now abandoned software or research project. EverGreg (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As nom explained, no evidence of notability. BayShrimp (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's unclear what this article is about exactly, and whether the concept of "SMART Agents" exists outside of Wikipedia and the author's fancy. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:13, 4 October 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. Courcelles 19:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Olav Harald Ulstein[edit]

Olav Harald Ulstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only of local interest, both as a politician and as an artist. Geschichte (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom. The politics is obviously only on a local level, and I haven't found any sources that indicate he is regarded as a national significant painter. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a notable politician, and when I google his name I can't find sources that makes him pass the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A period as deputy mayor of a municipality with population under 8,000 falls short of WP:POLITICIAN, and he also falls short of meeting WP:ARTIST. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 7 October 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 James Ussher. Courcelles 19:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Tyrrell[edit]

Elizabeth Tyrrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Don't see how she is notable. Seems like she's only notable because her father is. Can't find her anywhere on Google either. Yields very few search results. Proudbolsahye (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to James Ussher. It could be merged either to husband Timothy Tyrrell (whose notability is questionable) or much more famous father James Ussher, though her sons James Tyrrell (Oakley)[18] and John Tyrrell (Royal Navy officer) are also notable. Of those, son is less logical than father, and husband may not be notable. Can find no reason why she might be notable in herself. There are published letters by a different Elizabeth Ussher (c. 1772-96).[19] There is some info about this Elizabeth online but mainly just on her family and relation with her father[20][21][22][23][24]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to her husband Timothy Tyrrell. He and her two sons are all on the fringes of notability. She seems to have done nothing but be a mother and wife. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no doubt she existed, but she's not really that notable. A merger is cheap and easy here. Bearian (talk) 22:57, 7 October 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 Abhishek Agrawal. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ForGetting The Unforgettable[edit]

ForGetting The Unforgettable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

For a bestseller in its third reprint, I'd expect lots of Google hits but besides sale listings and promotion, all I can find is one anonymous review—a negative one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to author Abhishek Agrawal. Not seeing any info on this, but his first book is more notable. The vague and unsourced claims about being "a commercial success" and "National Bestseller" don't merit merging. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect for now, though I expect that the author's article also should be brought to AfD soon. I haven't done a deep check, but from what I've seen the only coverage I got is a statement from a local book fair organizer saying that his book is selling like hotcakes. —SpacemanSpiff 18:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect unable to find book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per others. I can't find anything. There might be more coverage once the book is translated into Hindi, but for now the coverage isn't out there. The thing about bestselling status is that it's never a guarantee of notability. That's why you can have books that hit almost every bestseller list out there, yet never gain enough notability to have their own article. It happens quite frequently, more frequently than most would think. I know that Laurell K Hamilton has multiple books that although they were wildly popular upon release, never gained the coverage necessary for a standalone article... despite selling hundreds of thousands of copies in various languages. Author fame and bestselling status make it more likely coverage will come about, but it's never a guarantee. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete--Ymblanter (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too Hard To Handle[edit]

Too Hard To Handle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Book fails WP:NBOOKS, and has received no independent coverage in secondary sources. Note that among the listed sources/externals links are a group blog/user-submitted news site, a pay-for promotion site (see this package offering), besides links to author's web/facebook page.

Also see this AFD created by same SPA, who has also been spamming links to the two possibly related subjects onto several wikipedia pages. Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Abecedare (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article creator (or person who turned it from redirect to article) has removed AfD notice. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it, but watch in case it happens again. The notice will be removed once a decision is reached and the AfD process has concluded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability via multiple independent book reviews in reliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/userfy. Ultimately there just isn't coverage out there. I can see where there are some blog hits, but those cannot count towards notability. The problem is that bestselling status doesn't give notability. It can make it more likely that the book will gain coverage, but it's never a guarantee. I have no problem with this being userfied until it gains more coverage, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:16, 2 October 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alma Powell[edit]

Alma Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. She is simply the wife of Collin Powell, who assists him in running one of his organizations. PrairieKid (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has Withdrawn Nomination: While I still STRONGLY believe this article fails WP:NOTINHERITED, I see that consensus has been reached to the contrary and, in honor of the Democratic system I so support on here, I will heed to my fellow editors and withdraw this nomination. PrairieKid (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Yet another misapplication of WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't matter who a person is married to so long as they do something, and not sit on the couch and collect accolades for being someone. What has Alma Powell done? She is an author of two books, and she is founder and co-chair of America's Promise, both of which has given her a great deal of independent notability. She has also given Congressional testimony, numerous awards and honors.

Reviews and coverage of her books per WP:AUTHOR #3:

• Rust, Suzanne. Black Issues Book Review, May/Jun2003, Vol. 5 Issue 3, p57.
• BookTV an hour-long national cable program.[25].
• "America's Promise." Horn Book Guide, Fall 2003: 336.
• "America's Promise." School Library Journal, June 2003: 113.
• Patrick, Diane. "Multicultural Children's Book Festival." Publishers Weekly 8 Sept. 2003: 25. ("Presenting authors will include Alma Powell..")
• "America's Promise. (National Report)." Jet 30 June 2003: 12.
• "My Little Red Wagon." Publishers Weekly 26 May 2003: 72.
• "My Little Wagon. (Children's Books)." Kirkus Reviews 1 Mar. 2003: 395.
• "My Little Wagon (Book)". Markland, Kyissa. Essence (Time Inc.). Dec2003, Vol. 34 Issue 8, p210-210.

Other sources per WP:GNG:

• "Alma Powell receives Bouchet Legacy Award." ASHA Leader 30 Oct. 2012: 7. (2012 Edward Alexander Bouchet Legacy Award from Howard University)
• Smith, Portsia. "Alma Powell lauds county for keeping pledge to youth " The Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg, VA). 09/17/2011.
• "Booker and Powell to Receive Honorary Doctorates at Fisk University Commencement (cover story)" Tennessee Tribune. 4/28/2011, Vol. 22 Issue 17, p1A-8B.
• STEPHANOPOULOS, GEORGE. "The Powell's Passion" Good Morning America (ABC). 3/2/2010, p1-1.
• "STATE OF AMERICAN CHILDREN". FDCH Congressional Testimony. 06/08/2010
• Budd, Ken. "Alma Powell: Children's Advocate." AARP: The Magazine. Jan/Feb 2009, Vol. 52 Issue 1C, p36-36.
• "In praise of volunteerism." Jet 17 Mar. 2008: 25. ("Alma Powell .. praises Mississippi for its aggressive approach to high school dropout prevention through a statewide dropout prevention summit in Jackson, MS. The summit drew more than 2,000 educators..")
• The World Affairs Council of Washington, DC Global Leadership Award in 2007.[26]
• Larry King. Larry King Live (CNN). 06/28/2007
• Johnson, Rebecca. "Alma Powell goes public: she may be intensely private, but the general's wife has lots to say about raising her three kids (often alone), helping others, and the real reason her husband didn't run for president. (real lives)." Good Housekeeping Apr. 2003: 113+.
• "Alma Powell Writing Children's Books", Associated Press, 06/25/2002
• "Alma Powell talks about depression." Jet 17 Mar. 1997: 9.
• "The most fascinating women of the year. (cover story)." Ladies' Home Journal. Jan97, Vol. 114 Issue 1, p42. 6p.
• "Alma Powell." Jet 3 Mar. 1997: 20. ("Alma Powell .. has been elected as a vice-chair of the Kennedy Center.")
• Rena Pederson. "Alma Powell on her own" Dallas Morning News (TX). 12/16/1997
• Gerhart, Ann; Groer, Annie. "Alma Powell, looking ahead" Washington Post 02/25/97, Vol. 120 Issue 82, pE3.
• "Colin Powell's wife reveals she got hate mail during time he considered bid for president." Jet 6 May 1996: 12.
• McElwaine, Sandra. "Her American journey; when he faced the toughest choice of his life, Colin Powell turned to his most trusted advisor: his wife, Alma." Ladies Home Journal May 1996: 152+.
• Pooley, Eric. "WHY ALMA DIDN'T WANT THE JOB." Time magazine 20 Nov. 1995: 50+.
• Sanz, Cynthia; Kramer, Linda. "Woman of influence." People. 11/20/95, Vol. 44 Issue 21, p50.
• Thomas, Evan. "The general's lady." Newsweek 13 Nov. 1995: 37+.
• Auster, Bruce B. "She, too, has been the good soldier." U.S. News & World Report 13 Nov. 1995: 32.
• "Powell's wife opposes him running." Navy Times 9/18/95, Vol. 44 Issue 50, p2. 1/9p.
• "Wife of Powell sees danger in candidacy." New York Times. 9/9/95, Vol. 144 Issue 50179, p6.
• Means, Howard. "Taps and reveille." Washingtonian Oct. 1992: 52+.
• Watters, Susan. "The General's lady." Ebony Sept. 1991: 52+.

-- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all, of the sources you mention (that I can check) have to do with her as Powell's wife, not as her own person.

The early ones are arguably I'd agree but once you get to 1997 (Rena Pederson. "Alma Powell on her own" Dallas Morning News) she emerges as an independent entity. In any case her husband clearly didn't author children's books, or testify before Congress on children's issues, or receive the awards she has, etc.. as Tokyogirl79 said, she is always going to be spoken of in the context of her husband but that doesn't mean anything if she is actually doing things that receive recognition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and Expand.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You're likely to never find an article that doesn't mention her husband in some form or fashion. However she is notable outside of her husband, especially in the forum of education- which is probably why she has a library branch named after her. The article needs to be expanded, but that's pretty much the only thing that needs to be done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people have library branches named after them. Should I make an article on every one of them? PrairieKid (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a logical fallacy known as a strawman. Tokyogirl79 gave the library as one more piece of the overwhelming pile of evidence. You took that one piece alone and held it up as the sole evidence in order to knock it down. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Overwhelming evidence has already been listed. (Personal attack removed) Human.v2.0 (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I agree that she will always be mentioned as being married to Colin Powell, and I don't doubt that being his wife helped open some doors, but given the coverage and what she has done, it's quite clear that WP:GNG has been met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Gehl[edit]

Derek Gehl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Even less evidence for notability than the Corey Rudi article. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Subject has written for and appeared on many news publications. The article is written like an advertisement, but doesn't quite hit that threshold. Very weak keep. PrairieKid (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has no claim to notability whatsoever. I'm astonished that an article about this person has been on Wikipedia for six years. Coretheapple (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced, and being the CEO of a company that doesn't have an article is not a particularly compelling claim of notability. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can actually write and source a better article than this, but this version doesn't demonstrate much actual notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Rudl[edit]

Corey Rudl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a brief piece online covering the subject's death crash and I did find one book mentioning the subject as a "well-known Internet marketer" ("Digital Engagement" 2009, via Questia). That aside there are several Google Books links to what are effectively ads for his book. Overall I think this is too light to establish biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Coretheapple (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced, and being the CEO of a company that doesn't have an article is not a particularly compelling claim of notability. No prejudice against future recreation if somebody can actually write and source a better article than this, but this version doesn't demonstrate much actual notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 6 October 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. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Azra Hadzic[edit]

Azra Hadzic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable per NSports or project tennis. No WTA main draws, no ITF wins in $35,000+ tournament in either singles or doubles, no fed cup, no jr slam victories. Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. But I should note that "'Azra Hadzic' tennis" gets 23 deghosted hits in the Google News Archive. 103.250.234.97 (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what deghosted is. When I search the name under google news I get 5 hits... 4 from the Toowoomba Chronicle. I'm guessing almost all ITF minor players get that same sort of hit from hometown papers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps that's because I'm using the New Zealand version of Google. I get Cairns, The Border Mail, The Courier, and Geelong Advertiser, as well as a mess of articles from NTNews, the news service for Northern Territory. I don't why Google thinks we care about local Aussie news. 103.250.234.97 (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:22, 3 October 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.